excavations at buckton castle, tameside, greater...

© CfAA. Hill Farm Barn, Staffordshire, Historic Building Survey, May 2011 1

Excavations at Buckton Castle, Tameside, Greater Manchester. A Report on the Archaeological Excavations Undertaken by the University of Manchester in 2008 A Report by Brian Grimsditch and Dr Michael Nevell CfAA Report No: 1/2009 Centre for Applied Archaeology School of the Built Environment CUBE University of Salford 113-115 Portland Street Manchester M1 6DW Tel: 0161 295 3818 Email: [email protected] Web: www.cfaa.co.uk

©Centre for Applied Archaeology, University of Salford. Buckton Castle Excavation Report for 2008 2

Contents

Summary 3

1. Introduction 6

2. Archaeological and Historical Background 8

3. Methodology 23

4. Results 27

5. Discussion 35

6. Specialist Report: The Artefactual Evidence by Ruth Garratt 39

7. Conclusion 55

8. Sources 59

10. Acknowledgements 64

Appendix 1: Photographic catalogue 65

Appendix 2: Summary List of Contexts 79

Appendix 3: Excavation Archive 84

Appendix 4: Assemblage Archive 85

Plates (Illustrations) 92

Plates (Photos) 104


Summary

This report summarises the results of fieldwork at Buckton Castle, a Scheduled

Ancient Monument in Tameside, Greater Manchester (SD 9892 0162; NMR

27598; GMSMR 56), carried out during March and April 2008 by the University of

Manchester Archaeological Unit. The work was funded by the Tameside

Metropolitan Borough Council and Scheduled Ancient Monument Consent to

excavate was obtained from English Heritage. The project brief/remit of

archaeological works was designed, in consultation with the County Archaeologist

Norman Redhead at the Greater Manchester Archaeology Unit, with the aim of

gaining a better understanding of the monument; attempting to assess its date of

construction, and to place it in context within the region and with other similar

monuments.

The investigation concentrated on four discreet areas of the site and was designed

to supplement and consolidate the information obtained from previous seasons of

archaeological investigation and survey work begun in 1996, and to strengthen the

results identified during the latest programme of structured fieldwork in 2007.

Three core trenches were positioned in order to concentrate firstly; on the area

around the northern entrance; the south eastern corner of the interior where a raised

platform was evident and a plan of 1842 indicated the possible presence of a ruined

structure; and lastly to identify the nature, extent and deposits associated with the

ditch at the eastern side of the monument (Fig. 7). There was also a contingency of

c. 15 linear metres of trenching to facilitate further investigation of any exposed

archaeology within the three core trenches.

Trench 1: Core Aim

Prior to 2008, no official investigation of the enclosure ditch system at Buckton

Castle had taken place and it was therefore proposed to open a trench across the

eastern ditch. As previous official archaeological excavations had yielded no

artefactual evidence it was also hoped that the deposits associated with the ditch in

this relatively undisturbed area of the monument would provide an opportunity to

obtain palaeo-environmental samples and dateable artefacts as well as ascertain the

form of the castle ditch itself. Trench 1 was opened across the eastern ditch,

measuring 10.00m by 5.00m and was stepped and battered as appropriate. For the

first time, the opportunity was provided to analyse the form and profile of the ditch

and establish whether the interior raised level of the earthwork was constructed

with material from the original excavation of the ditch. For the first time it was also

possible to provide a complete profile through the Buckton Castle defences.

Trench 2: Core Aim

The acquisition of a plan dated 1842, the survey for which was carried out by the

Saddleworth Geological Society (Fig. 3), indicated the possible presence of a

ruined structure in the south-eastern interior corner of the castle, rising

approximately 1.00m above the rest of the interior, forming a level platform. There

was otherwise no visible above-ground evidence for any surviving internal

structures, as a result it was deemed important to ascertain the nature and level of

survivability of any structural remains that may be located within this platform by

investigation of this area and thereby greatly assisting in the interpretation of the

castle and its significance within the region. Trench 2 was opened, covering an area

20.00m by 3.00m with its eastern edge located on the eastern embankment. This


trench would attempt to not only locate any surviving structural remains but also

establish the nature of the eastern earthwork/embankment and whether it was

similar in form to that identified on the western side of the castle.

Trench 3: Core Aims

The 2007 evaluation revealed the presence of an ashlar-faced wall running along

the northern-western side of the castle to the west of the perceived entrance. This

area has been the subject of much unauthorised attention with robber-trenches

specifically dug out during the 18th century looking for treasure and intermittent

damage as a result of metal detecting activity in the late 20th century. On the eastern

side of the entrance there appears to be a raised rectilinear area that is similar in

shape to the disturbed area on the western side of the entrance. The aim of the

programme for this area was to determine the form of the entrance, to ascertain if

there were any structures or indeed a gatehouse associated with the defences and to

seek to clarify the form of the monument itself. It would also seek to clarify if the

curtain wall was the initial phase of construction or if there was an earlier type of

castle identifiable in the sub-surface deposits. The specific form of the entrance

would also hopefully provide a more accurate indication of the date for the castle,

e.g. twin drum towers do not appear until the early 13th century. In order to fulfil

these specific research criteria a trench of 20.00m by 3.00m was opened across the

interior of the gateway with the western end overlapping the eastern end of Trench

1 excavated in 2007.

The archaeological investigation of the ditch on the eastern profile of the

monument in Trench 1/08 provided evidence for the nature of the composition of

the inner mound and the phases of subsequent abandonment and deterioration of

the masonry from the outer mural defences into the rock-cut ditch. Unfortunately

no reliable dating evidence was recovered from the archaeological deposits within

the trench and the full profile of the (western) inner profile of the ditch was not

achieved. However, the excavation and investigation of this feature provided

irrefutable evidence for the primary phases of the construction of the monument,

providing further evidence to suggest that it should no longer be classified as a

ringwork, but was first and foremost a stone-built structure, substantiated by the

amount of masonry evident in the tumbled rubble deposits comprising the ditch

fills and the nature of the fragmentary composite sandstone, upcast from the

original excavation of the ditch, and utilised as a raising and levelling layer for the

inner mound.

The results from the excavation of Trench 2/08 provided evidence for at least two

phases of construction during the life-span of the castle, with an earlier initial phase

of fortification of the site which included the erection of an outer stone revetment

or curtain wall, possibly contemporaneous with the initial excavation of the outer

ditch and the raising of the inner mound. A second phase of construction, possibly

synonymous with a period of civil unrest in the mid-12th century, necessitated the

modification of the extant defences and the construction of a robust internal curtain

wall, following the circumference of the mound itself. This could have formed an

internal rampart or part of a series of internal buildings or structures projecting off

the outer curtain/revetment wall. However, no evidence for the relationship

between the inner and outer walls in terms of chronological seniority has so far

been recovered from the archaeological excavations in this area, nor has the exact

nature, function and inter-relationship of these defensive stone structures, as yet

been established. However, the results from the investigation of Trench2/08

corroborates and supports the evidence from Trench 1/08, with the stone

foundations for the outer revetment wall clearly sited below the level of the upcast


sandstone levelling layer, mirroring what was visible in Trench 2/07 on the western

side of the mound, suggesting that the foundations were already in place when the

levelling material was upcast onto the mound. This would indicate that the primary

phase of construction comprised a stone-built curtain wall, as opposed to an earthen

bank and timber palisade, as with a typical ringwork-type castle.

Trench 3/08 provided the best evidence for chronological and typological

substantiation of the type and date for the monument. Solid archaeological

evidence in the form of in situ walls and original surfaces were exposed under up-

cast overburden deposits, the result of intrusion and disturbance from 18th and 19th -

century robber activity in the general vicinity. Four walls, surviving in parts to a

depth of over 1.0m, formed a square gatehouse located off the western extent of the

entrance into the Castle. These walls were built on the layer of peat, approximately

1.50m below the present surface, indicating that they may represent one of the

earliest phases of construction on site.

The gatehouse structure provided firm typological evidence for the early date of the

castle, placing it within a group of similar monument types, dating to the mid-12th

century. However, no decorative masonry or dressed architectural stonework was

evident, although archaeological deposits associated with the later phases of floor

surfaces in the entrance provided dating evidence in the form of artefactual

material; fragments from at least two ceramic vessels, datable to the late 11th to 13th

centuries, associated with organic debris (scraps of bone and leather) and residual

charcoal; - tantalising evidence for the occupation of the castle during the late 12th

century. The nature and form of the northern entrance was also confirmed during

this phase of archaeological works, although the exact relationship between the

inner and outer defences has yet to be established through further archaeological

excavation.


1. Introduction

1.1 The site of Buckton Castle is situated on the edge of a sandstone escarpment at c

344m AOD (SD 9892 0162), some 4km to the north-east of Stalybridge in the

modern Tameside MBC (Fig. 1). To the south the site overlooks the valley of the

Carr Brook, while to the west it dominates the narrow river valley of the Tame

which runs immediately below the castle, where its outline forms a conspicuous

feature against the skyline. The moor lands of the southern Pennines rise above the

site to the north and east where they reach a height of 500m AOD. To the east the

site is bounded by Buckton Vale Quarry, and because of its proximity to this site

Buckton Castle was first protected as an Ancient Monument on 9th July 1924.

1.2 It has been the subject of antiquarian interest for over 200 years, but only since the

1960s has its general date been identified with a reasonable degree of certainty.

Earlier reports variously supposed the site to be a small Iron Age fort or, less

plausibly, Roman or Anglo-Saxon in origin (Booth and Cronin 1989, 62-3) but

from the mid-20th century it became widely assumed that it belonged to a type of

medieval castle known as a 'ringwork'. Such sites comprised a small circular or

oval area, enclosed by a substantial earth bank and outer ditch. Until recent

archaeological investigation, Buckton Castle appeared to conform to this model

and a medieval date also appears to be confirmed by the documentary evidence: the

site is mentioned in a survey of Longdendale in 1360 as ‘a derelict castle called

Buckeden’ (Booth et a1 1976-7, 35 no 83). Several plans of the castle have been

produced in the past, with varying degrees of accuracy (Figs. 2a/b, 4, 5 & 6). The

pockmarked interior is the result of random, and unscientific, trenching of the site

which has taken place since at least the early 18th century, when local people dug

here in the hope of finding treasure. The castle itself is now a Scheduled Ancient

Monument (NMR 27598; GMSMR 56).

1.3 Between 1996 and 2008 the University of Manchester Archaeological Unit

undertook investigation and archaeological evaluations of the site on behalf of

Tameside Borough Council. During the 2002, investigations were conducted to

carry out remedial work on recent robber pits. As a result the opportunity was taken

to investigate any archaeological remains and uncovered evidence for a putative

wall at the north-western corner of the castle which was subsequently exposed and

recorded.

1.4 The aims of the current project were to:

• Analyse and evaluate the area around the original entrance into the

earthwork, any associated structural remains and the nature of the

causeway access and how these features relate to the putative wall located

in previous evaluations in the north-western corner of the monument.

• Evaluate the relatively undisturbed section of outer embankment along the

eastern edge of the monument to ascertain the nature of the rampart/stone

revetment in this area and establish the level of survivability of any

structural remains, specifically the raised platform identified on this side of

the monument.

• Obtain a profile across the outer defences and establish their relationship

with the composition of the inner mound.

• Obtain further environmental and dating samples from the archaeological

deposits in the ditch and across the site more generally.

• To make recommendations as to the future investigation, consolidation and

preservation of the monument.


Fig. 1: The location of Buckton Castle. Scale: 1: 10 000, and inset 1:2500. Source OS 1: 10

000 series, sheet SD 90 SE, revised 1982, published 1983; OS 1:2500 series, sheet SD

9801, revised 1968, published 1969.


2. Historical and Archaeological Background

2.1 Introduction

In the medieval period Buckton Castle lay within the manor of Tintwistle, an

extensive tract of land at the north-eastern extremity of Cheshire. Much of the

manor was high moor, bordered on the west by the Tame Valley and on the south

by the pass of Longdendale which led into Yorkshire and formed the boundary

between Cheshire and Derbyshire. The manor of Tintwistle was part of the lordship

of Longdendale, a substantial landholding which at the time of the Domesday

survey in 1086 was held by the earl of Chester, Hugh Lupus. Subsequent earls

appear to have retained the Longdendale lordship until the second half of the

twelfth century when it was granted to William de Neville and his wife Amabilia.

The precise date of this change of ownership is a matter of uncertainty. However, it

was before June 1186, when there is a reference to a grant by William de Neville

and Amabilia to Monk Bretton Priory of the mill of Longdendale (Walker 1924,

11). The grant of the mill was later reversed by Thomas de Burgh (Walker 1924,

102-3), (Monk Bretton, near Barnsley, had been founded by Amabilia's father,

Adam FitzSwain). There are two charters which purport to grant Longdendale to de

Neville and his wife, one by Earl Hugh II during the period 1162-73, the second by

Earl Ranulf, who succeeded to the earldom in 1181 (Barraclough 1988, 174-5, no

170, 322-3, no 321). Doubts of the authenticity of the first charter are raised by at

least one of the witnesses to the document, Robert de Stokeport, being otherwise

unattested by this name before the 1180s. The second charter, almost identical in

wording, may well be authentic and would therefore belong to the period 1181-6.

The forgery of the earlier charter is puzzling. One explanation might be that Earl

Hugh II had in fact originally granted Longdendale to de Neville and his wife, but

that the original charter was subsequently lost. The charter of Earl Ranulf III would

then be a confirmation of that first grant.

2.2 The Building of the Castle: the Documentary Evidence

It is possible that Buckton Castle was built by one of the earls of Chester prior to

the grant to de Neville and Amabilia (at whatever date). The position of the castle

high above the Tame valley might suggest that it was built to guard the eastern

approaches to the earldom. There are three occasions in the 12th century when the

Earls of Chester might have erected a castle at Buckton. Firstly, in the civil wars of

King Stephen’s reign the fourth Earl, Ranulf II, was in constant conflict with the

King in the 1140s, and they would have needed to defend the boundaries of their

earldom. Secondly, in 1153 the Earl of Chester was poisoned by his neighbour,

William de Peverel, who held Mouselow Castle in Glossop, a short distance from

Buckton. The king confiscated de Peverel’s land for this act, but clearly relations

were so poor between these neighbours, suggesting that castles would have been a

necessary precaution in order to defend the borders of their territories (BH St J

O’Neil 1979, 2). Thirdly, the 5th Earl of Chester, Hugh Cyvelioc, joined the

rebellion against Henry II in 1173, which led to his estates being confiscated.

Again this may have prompted him to erect defences on his borders.

William de Neville, however, is also a likely candidate. His wife Amabilia, whom

he married in about c. 1165, was one of two daughters and co-heiresses of Adam

Fitzswain. As a consequence, she brought to de Neville lands in Yorkshire, which

he held under the powerful de Lacey family, and also a half share of Kaskenmoor


in south-east Lancashire. This was an extensive area of moorland, centred on

Oldham and Crompton, and was held under the king as part of the royal manor of

Salford (Farrer 1902, 157, 236-8; Farrer 1916, 198, 317-8, 329; Farrer & Brownbill

1911, 94; HMSO, The Book of Fees, Part I, 215-6)

In granting Longdendale to de Neville, the earl of Chester was adding to the estates

of an individual who was already a significant landowner in the region. If de

Neville was responsible for the construction of Buckton Castle, its purpose may

have been to safeguard the Tame valley either for the earl or as protection for de

Neville's own Pennine estates, quite possibly both.

In the early 13th century William de Neville’s hold on these estates was

weakening. Amabilia died in 1207, de Neville himself in 1210 or 1211. His

successor was his grandson, Thomas de Burgh. However, after de Neville's death,

Kaskenmoor was claimed by the king, and was still in crown possession in 1226-8

(HMSO, The Book of Fees, Part I, 215-6, 368).

The loss to de Burgh would have been one of rents rather than land, for by the time

of de Neville's death his share of Kaskenmoor had already been divided between a

number of free tenants. Probably by 1225 much of the lordship of Longdendale had

also been granted out as sub-manors, leaving only the manors of Mottram and

Tintwistle in the direct control of the lord of Longdendale. This process of

subinfeudation is first apparent under Thomas de Burgh, but may have begun under

William de Neville (Nevell 1991, 27-31, 32-5, 36-41, 43-5).

If the manorial background to Buckton Castle points, however tentatively, to a date

in the late twelfth century for its construction, so does the dating evidence for other

early castles in the region. Documentary references to most of these are sparse.

However, apart from Buckton seven other early castles are known in Greater

Manchester (see below), of which three (Stockport, Dunham and Ullerswood) were

in existence by 1173 and a fourth (Manchester) by 1184.

In 1360 a survey of the rents and services due from the tenants of the lord of

Longdendale, who at that time was none other than the Black Prince, mentioned the

castle twice (Booth et al 1976-7, 35 no 83, 43 no 98; GMAU 1981). On membrane

3 it is stated that ‘in the same place [Longdendale] there is a castle called Buckeden

of no value item there is in the same place a hall a chamber in the hands of the lord

[this is crossed out] and a chapel that must be submitted at farm as below’. The

survey continues by noting on membrane 7 that ‘there is in the [same] place one

demolished castle called Buckeden (The Latin text for membrane 7 reads as

follows `...unum cast dirutum vocatum Buckeden...') of no value and there is in the

same place one hall, one chamber and one chapel and they are submitted at farm

and rent yearly.’ There is some uncertainty over the relationship of these two

entries. An alternative reading of these might be that the hall and chapel buildings

were located in Tintwistle where a manor house is mentioned in 1370. However, in

the first entry there is no punctuation between the word ‘item’ and the previous

sentence about ‘Buckeden’. Furthermore, there is a full stop at the end of the two

sentences and the survey then goes on to consider the holdings of Robert de

Stanelesh. It would thus appear that these two sentences were intended to refer to

one specific place, making it difficult to argue that these buildings were not at

Buckton Castle.

That Buckton should have ceased to be a working castle by 1360 is in keeping with

the evidence for other castles in the region. With the possible exception of

Dunham, there is no indication that any of the Greater Manchester castles


continued in use after the 13th century.

In the mid-16th century Buckton Castle is said to have been the site of a beacon

during the Pilgrimage of Grace (Andrew 1892, 54). After that time, the site may

have slipped once again into obscurity until in the 18th century when it became a

focus of attention, first among local treasure hunters, and then among local

antiquarians (Fig. 2a/b).

A Case for Ranulf II

Ranulf II (b. c.1105, d. 1153) was the son of Ranulf I, the third Earl of Chester and

succeeded to the earldom on his father’s death in 1129. With the marriage of the

third earl to Lucy of Bollingbrooke, which brought with it extensive lands in

Lincolnshire, the emphasis of the earl’s interest within England shifted to the south

and east and gave the earl a base from which to control what was a prosperous and

well populated county. This was a dangerous situation for the king at the time,

Henry I, who forced the already powerful man to surrender a great deal of the

Bollingbrooke lands (Thacker 1991, 11). However, on his father’s death in 1129

Ranulf II regained the control of much of his mother’s inheritance.

A further factor in the nature of the power base that was the Earls of Chester was

Carlisle and the land that was to become the county of Lancashire in the north. In

the early 12th century Lancashire was not the county it is today and was split into

two areas. The southern part, the land between the Ribble and the Mersey and the

other, being that land north of the Ribble. The two parts, together with southern

Cumbria, came under the control of Roger de Poitevin after the Conquest. Around

1113 Henry I granted Roger’s estates to Stephen of Blois thus gaining direct

interest in the land prior to his accession to the English Throne. In 1112 Henry I

appointed Ranulf I to the lordship at Carlisle. His responsibility was terminated by

the king when Ranulf succeeded to the Earldom of Chester.

Ranulf II rightly or wrongly may have assumed a right to the land that was to

become Lancashire and Carlisle itself. His claim to Carlisle could stem from his

father’s control prior to his gaining the earldom of Chester, though his claim to

Lancashire is more tenuous. Ranulf II may have believed that his father held an

interest in Lancashire though this is disputed. The lands of Roger of Poitevin, as

stated earlier, were given to Stephen around 1116 but a charter issued by Stephen

in 1146 made several grants to Ranulf that included the two parts of Lancashire

(Green 1991, 103).

The earls and magnates, including Ranulf, would have been required to take an

oath of fealty to Matilda, Henry I’s designated heir. As a result, the seizure of the

throne by Stephen in 1153 presented them with a problem and although Ranulf

may have been tempted to adhere to his oath the actions of Matilda’s uncle, King

David of Scotland, could have dissuaded him.

In 1136, the year after the death of Henry I, King David crossed the Scottish border

and seized several fortified places in Northumbria but also importantly the

stronghold of Carlisle and the district of Cumberland (Lynch 2001, 164). Ranulf

had to stand by and watch whilst Stephen recognised the Scottish takeover of

Carlisle and Cumberland as well as Northumbria in accordance with the Treaty of

Durham in 1138. With this firm base from which to work, David cast his eyes

south to gain further land in Lancashire. Even though Stephen allowed this

incursion Ranulf initially remained his supporter, probably due to the relationship

of Matilda and David.


A second Treaty of Durham in 1139 granted David’s son the Earldom of

Northumbria that included Carlisle and Lancashire north of the Ribble. This second

treaty caused Ranulf to revolt which was the first of seven times during the

‘Anarchy’ that he was accused of doing so. Probably the best known revolt was to

culminate in the Battle of Lincoln in 1141 when Stephen was captured.

Eventually reconciliation between Ranulf and Stephen took place resulting in him

receiving a number of grants, issued c. 1146, including the hereditary grant of the

Honour of Lancaster and the land between the Mersey and the Ribble (Green 1991,

105). It is probable that David of Scotland held north Lancashire, if not the south,

but the grants entitled Ranulf to recover the whole of the county.

Soon after the two were again in conflict following Ranulf’s arrest and short

imprisonment by Stephen, and Ranulf was never again to join Stephen’s side.

Following his release from custody he tried to recover lost ground in the Midlands

and Lancashire and in 1149 he joined Prince Henry, Matilda’s son and the future

King Henry II, who had gone to King David, his uncle, at his court in Carlisle to be

knighted. Some arrangements were obviously made between Ranulf and the King

regarding the land obtained by David from Stephen, the land that Ranulf so

coveted. Although Carlisle may have been a bridge to far, David conceded north

Lancashire to Ranulf in return for giving up his claim on Carlisle. Thus, for the

final few years of his life Ranulf held north and south Lancashire and the threat

from Scotland seemed to have abated.

This being said Ranulf II’s main concern was probably his holdings in the midlands

area and he had other adversaries including William Peverel who was a suspect in

the earl’s death in 1153.


Figs. 2a and 2b: Plan of Buckton Castle by Thomas Percival, mid- 18th century (from Aikin

1795) and Percival’s plan, as amended by the Reverend John Watson, 1777.


2.3 Buckton: a ‘Ringwork’ Castle?

The earthworks at Buckton were once thought to be a type of castle known as a

‘ringwork’. Ringworks are the simplest form of defensive earthwork, with their

origins stretching back to the late Bronze Age at least. They would have a ditch

with a raised bank on the ditch’s interior possibly crowned with a palisade that in-

turn would enclose an occupation area. As medieval castles they acted as baileys

without a motte, enclosing residential and animal accommodation, storerooms,

kitchens and other paraphernalia. However, since only a few have been extensively

excavated (notably Lydford Castle in Devon, Barnard Castle in County Durham,

Llantrithyd Castle in Glamorgan, Cae Castell in Glamorgan, and Castle Tower,

also known as Rumney Castle, in Glamorgan, and Ogmore also in Glamorgan),

(Higham and Barker 1992, 198, 277-9, 303-10; Spurgeon 1987, 24) it is not clear

whether ringworks were confined to only one entrance protected by an adjacent

tower nor whether they had other features such as internal towers along the

defences. At Buckton the interior is raised above the natural ground surface, by

approximately 1.50m, with an embankment around the edge of the interior. Similar

raised interiors have been noted in other ringworks notably the initial early Norman

castle at Old Sarum.

With the results of this latest investigation it may be necessary to re-interpret the

castle’s classification. The discovery of a massive, masonry curtain wall, possibly

the original phase of the castle’s construction, could negate this interpretation of

the site as a ringwork.

Fig. 3: Plan of Buckton Castle, 1842 (Saddleworth Geological Society, courtesy of

Ken Booth)


Fig. 4: The ringwork at Buckton, with the location of the putative bailey to the left

(now disproved), and Buckton Vale Quarry to the right

Buckton Castle comprises an oval area, c. 45.0m by 35.0m, enclosed by a bank c.

2.50m - 3.0m wide, and an outer ditch, c. 10.0m wide and c. 6.0m deep, which has

been dug from the natural sandstone but is absent on the south-west (Fig. 4). On

the northwest the ditch is crossed by a causeway which leads from a small ‘D’

shaped earthwork along a path on the exterior bank of the ditch and through a break

in the bank. This appears to have been the original entrance. There may be the

remains of a stone tower in the north-western comer of the site (as at Barnard

Castle, Cae Castell and Castle Tower), where the defences widen into a bulbous

shape and there is evidence of two stone walls at right-angles to each other.

The investigation of 2007 and the latest season in 2008 have now revealed that the

earthwork bank is in fact covering a massive curtain wall consisting of an inner and

outer ashlar wall with rubble and lime mortar infill measuring some 2.80m wide.

In Greater Manchester there is documentary and physical evidence for eight early

castles. Two (Rochdale and Watch Hill, in Trafford) are known to have been of the

motte and bailey type, as were perhaps also two others (Dunham, in Trafford, and

Ullerswood, to the south of Manchester Airport). The type of three others

(Manchester, Stockport and Blackrod, in Wigan) is uncertain.

However, in light of the recent evaluation, it is probable that Buckton Castle

requires a reinterpretation due to the discovery of the substantial curtain wall that

forms the greater part of the embankment. Therefore, the following list describes

other types of castle that the newly discovered massive curtain wall could have

belonged to.


2.4 Other Castle Types Relevant to Buckton

Shell Keeps

This type of castle was usually a replacement in stone of timber palisades

encircling motte and bailey or ringworks. A shell keep had a stone wall encircling

usually a motte with the stone wall half way up the slope or from ground level

acting as a casing for the motte. The shell wall was seldom more than one storey

high and its thickness between 1m and 5m, the top having an internal wall walk of

timber or stone. The top of the wall would be crenellated and there may have had

an external timber platform. Shell keeps varied considerably in size from 15m to

100m external diameter. They varied also in shape though most were circular.

About 12% of known shell keeps were built on ringworks. They could be defended

habitations or military strongholds for offensive operations and are found in rural

and urban areas. They date from a few years after the Conquest to the mid-

thirteenth century.

Tower keeps

This was a strongly fortified residence in which the keep was the principal

defensive feature which may be freestanding or surrounded by a defended

enclosure. They can be distinguished from other castle types by reference in

documentary sources to the existence of a ‘donjon’ (great tower or tower keep). If

there is an enclosure there would be a gatehouse, walls, and external ditch with

some domestic building inside. Again they were strongly fortified by the king or

lord etc. They were built throughout the medieval period from the Conquest to the

mid-fifteenth century peaking in the twelfth century, many developing into major

castles.

Enclosure castles

This was a defended residence or stronghold built mainly of stone. Principal

defences comprised the walls and towers bounding the site. May have had some

form of keep serving mainly as accommodation. They are recognised by their

curtain wall of greater height than those encircling a shell keep or tower keep.

There may also have been mural towers and gate towers within the enclosed area

(the ward) and domestic buildings either freestanding or incorporated into the wall.

Enclosure castles were the strongly defended residence of the king or lord sited for

offensive or defensive operations and often formed an administrative centre. They

are found both in rural and urban areas and developed during the twelfth century,

although most were built in the thirteenth century.

These definitions are taken from the English Heritage Monument Class

descriptions - http://www.eng-h.gov.uk/mpp/mcd/mcdtop1.htm

2.5 The Antiquarian Evidence for Buckton Castle

The Bank and Ditch

Although seemingly an earthwork it had been suggested prior to the recent

investigations that the bank may contain evidence for a masonry wall at the north

western corner (Roberts et al 2006) (Fig. 5a). This appears to be the earliest

recorded feature of the site, for on a late 16th- or early 17th-century map of the

manor of Staveley Buckton Castle is shown as a low circular stone wall (Fig. 5). In

the 1770s the Reverend John Watson, the rector of Stockport, noted that:


`The walls are removed, and only a rude heap of stones remains without

the least mark of a tool on them, as far as I could observe' (Watson 1777,

88) No subsequent antiquarian appears to have remarked on this feature,

until 1892 when Samuel Andrew noted that he had found mortar attached

to some of the stones (Andrew 1892, 54).

The absence of the ditch on the south-west has been noted by successive

antiquarians from the mid-18th century onwards, when Thomas Percival drew the

first known plan of the site. The common assumption has been that on this side the

steep natural slope made a continuation of the ditch unnecessary.

The entrance on the north-western side of the site, believed to be the original

approach into the castle, is similarly recorded from the time of Percival onwards.

On the other hand, the opposite south-eastern entrance appears to be absent from

18th- and early 19th-century accounts and plans of the site. Similarly it is absent

from a recently obtained plan compiled by the Saddleworth Geological Society

dated 1842 (Fig. 3). It is first shown on a plan and illustrations in the manuscripts

of Canon Raines, compiled in the mid-19th century, and is clearly depicted on the

plan published by the Victoria County History for Lancashire in 1908 (Fig. 5).

Internal Features

In the 18th century both Thomas Percival and the Reverend Watson recorded

ruined buildings within the bank of the castle (Fig. 4). According to Percival, on

the eastern side of the site were ruined walls standing roughly 2.00m high, while

Watson added that `the strongest works' appear to have been on the north-west, just

inside the entrance. On the south, Percival recorded what he believed to have been

a well close up against the bank. Watson, however, interpreted this feature as the

result of digging on the site by local people. In 1730 the rumour that a chest of gold

was buried in the castle resulted in nearly 100 people digging inside the castle for

several days (Roberts et al, 2006). Both Percival and Watson identified disturbance

near the north-western entrance as the result of their unrewarded efforts. From

Watson's account it seems that in the 1770s much of the interior of castle was

already heavily pockmarked from this episode and perhaps other treasure-seeking

attempts.

Whatever the precise nature and origin of the ruined structures recorded inside the

castle they had evidently been removed by 1817 when George Ormerod gave no

hint of their existence in either his account or plan of the site (Fig. 6). However, the

recently acquired plan of 1842 does indicate a ruined structure in the south eastern

quadrant (Fig. 3)

External Features

There is only scant evidence in the antiquarian reports of features outside the castle

and none which appears to relate to the supposed ‘bailey’. Samuel Andrew in 1892

reported that he ‘found below the castle, on the Saddleworth side, a portion of the

road leading to the castle ...The pavement in some places still remains

undisturbed... On the same side as the pavement lower down the hill there are two

deep trenches, not noticed in any account of the place I have seen, probably

outworks of the station’ (Andrew 1892, 54-5).

These ‘deep trenches’ may be the same as ‘the trenches at the foot of the hill’

which in a report three years later Andrew supposed to be evidence of terracing of


the hillside for agricultural purposes (Andrew 1895, 167). However, they could

also be the remains of the original approach road or ‘holloway’ to the castle.

Off the north western corner of the castle on the exterior of the ditch is a ‘D’

shaped earthwork. Leading from this earthwork is a narrow pathway, c. 3-4m wide,

that follows the outside of the ditch along the northern edge then turning south to

cross the ditch at the northern entrance forming a causeway over the northern ditch

at this point. It has been assumed that this earthwork was created by spoil possibly

from the quarry or during Second World War activities. However, closer

examination of the 16th/17th century plan of Staveley may indicate that there was a

masonry structure at this point (Fig. 5a)


Fig. 5: Buckton Castle (arrowed) on the late 16th/early17th century map of

the manor of Staveley (Bowman 1960, facing page 113).

Fig. 5a: Enlarged view of Buckton Castle from the 16th/17

th century map as arrowed above

(note the depiction of a coursed masonry curtain wall).


2.6 The Later Use of the Site

The site contains three structures that present something of an enigma; the small

concrete foundation of a brick-built structure approximately 4.00m by 6.00m on the

southern edge of the castle ditch (Fig. 4); a short stretch of bank next to the

concrete base and running eastwards from the earthwork (previously interpreted as

the southern arm of the bailey (Fig. 6) (Burke & Neve11 1996, 16); and a length of

cast guttering recovered from the trench inside the `bailey'. The first of these

features appears to be shown on an RAF aerial photograph of the site taken in the

late 1940s. This also shows a circuit of trackway, immediately above the quarry

and its course may coincide with the `modern roadway'.

Local tradition states that Buckton Castle was the location of a World War II decoy

site. Alan Rudd (from the Defence of Britain project run by the Council for British

Archaeology) reports that a passive anti-aircraft decoy defence system known as

‘Special Fire’ (SF), with the codename STARFISH, once stood at SD 997 017.

This grid reference is a conversion from a military grid and may contain some

inaccuracies. Buckton Castle lies close by at SD 9892 0162.

Following the German bomber raid on Coventry on the 14th November 1940, a

large number of STARFISH decoys were constructed (Lowry 1995, 63-4).

Positioned along suspected bomber routes some four miles in advance of probable

targets, these sites typically consisted of mock buildings containing highly

combustible material. As a raid commenced the flammable material would be

ignited electrically from a central shelter, sited some distance from these structures

(often 400 yards or 365m), in order to mimic bomb damage and encourage false

attacks. The central shelter or command post typically consisted of a small brick-

built structure on a concrete foundation, sometimes with a separate generator

building attached, and is the only substantial structure to survive on such sites.

However, it is possible that evidence relating to the firebreak trenches that

surrounded some of the fire displays may survive as earthworks or crop marks, but

these have not been looked for in the vicinity of Buckton Castle because of the

encroachment of the quarry onto the STARFISH site.

In 1942 STARFISH sites were given rocket protectors and mobile sites were also

introduced. By the end of 1943, with a decrease in enemy activity, the decoy sites

went out of use.

The roadway and concrete foundation, the position of the site above and to the east

of the Manchester conurbation, the distance of the foundation from the STARFISH

site grid reference, and the local tradition concerning the wartime use of Buckton,

all suggest that the castle site acted as part of a wartime decoy site.

Further evidence for the existence of Starfish site comes from a publication from

the Council for British Archaeology which shows that there were nine permanent

starfish sites in Manchester one of which is shown as located in Mossley a town

approximately half a mile to the west of the castle. The publication goes on to

inform us that the earliest reference for this decoy site at Mossley was 1st August

1941 and its last reference was 8th April 1943 (Dobinson 1996, 144 & 149).

2.7 Previous Archaeological Investigations at Buckton Castle, 1996 to 2002

There have been a number of archaeological investigations carried by UMAU

between 1996 and 2002 the results of which are contained within an unpublished

report (Roberts et al 2006). The following is a brief synopsis of these investigations


and their findings.

Topographic survey 1996

This survey concluded that the most likely cause for the lack of ditch on the

western side of the castle was due to land slippage though due to the number of

spoil heaps observed along the slope another explanation would be quarrying of an

uncertain date.

Excavations in 1996

The aim of this investigation was to examine the evidence for the supposed ‘outer

bailey’ lying to the immediate north of the castle. The evidence obtained suggested

that the landscape features that were observable were of recent origins and

probably connected to earth moving activities associated with the nearby quarry

and dating from the 1950’s and that if any earlier archaeologically significant

features were present then they had been at best heavily disturbed and at worst

removed by this activity

Excavations in 1998

Four test pits were excavated within the castle that revealed a complex stratigraphic

sequence. These trenches revealed a fragmented sandstone layer overlying a peat

layer from which radiocarbon dates were obtained. These dates demonstrated that

the sandstone layer could not have been deposited before AD 700.

Remedial Work and Recording 2002

This investigation was carried out following the report of unlicensed excavations

within the castle. These excavations were most likely the latest in the continuing

hunt for treasure that has taken place on the site for centuries. During the remedial

work the opportunity was taken to clean and record any archaeological features that

had been revealed. The most significant of such features was the ashlar faced stone

wall at the north-western corner of the bank. This feature had been first noted in

1981 during investigations by GMAU (Tindall 1981, 19). This feature raised

certain questions not least as to the classification of the castle.

Evaluation Excavations 2007

An evaluation excavation of the castle was carried out in 2007 involving students,

members of local archaeological groups and other volunteers under the supervision

of University of Manchester Archaeological Unit staff funded by Tameside MBC.

The aims of the evaluation were to investigate the embankment of the castle to

ascertain its composition. A trench was opened over the western embankment that

revealed the bank on the interior was made up of crushed sandstone probably up-

cast from the excavation of the ditch. However, at the apex of the embankment a

masonry wall was discovered a few centimetres below the vegetation and soil

cover. On further investigation a wall, measuring 2.80m wide and excavated to a

depth of c. 1.60m, made up of an inner and outer course of ashlar containing a

rubble and lime mortar fill.

Excavations at the north-western corner showed that the wall extended along this

corner the inner face forming a right angle before carrying on east to form the wall

along the northern bank. It may be possible that this area contained a structure


which formed part of the defences of the castle. Whilst no other evidence was

found during the 2007 evaluation to corroborate this interpretation, the possibility

may become more likely if the ground at the north-eastern side (on the eastern side

of the northern entrance), and the entrance way itself was investigated as it may

show a similar arrangement. Also, early documentary evidence would suggest that

there were structures within the site (Booth et al 1976-7, 35), and a recently

obtained plan of the castle, dated 1842, also indicates a ruined structure in the

south-eastern quadrant. All this evidence increases the likelihood that structural

remains exist within the castle defences.

No artefactual dating evidence came from this evaluation and it was proposed to

undertake a second phase of trial trenching, in 2008, which would examine the

entrance/gatehouse area, the ditch, the eastern embankment to ascertain if the

curtain wall extends along that side of the castle and the site of the ruined internal

building indicated on the 1842 plan.


Fig. 6: Comparative plans of Buckton Castle


3. Methodology

3.1 In March 2008 UMAU was given Scheduled Monument Consent to carry out

further limited excavation work at Buckton Castle. Excavations were subsequently

conducted during late March and April by members of the UMAU who were

responsible for supervising volunteers from various local archaeological groups. To

minimise the disturbance to any surviving archaeology UMAU’s proposal was to

hand dig three trenches to the first encountered archaeological levels with the

proviso to further investigate any revealed features believed to be connected to the

medieval castle structure. The use of a mechanical excavator was agreed in order to

facilitate the removal of the overburden and also maximise the use of time

available, particularly during the back-filling stage thus allowing for more time to

investigate the uncovered evidence. A small mechanical excavator was employed

in the initial stripping of the surface vegetation cover and initial few centimetres of

topsoil over Trenches 1 and 3. On completion of the investigation the excavated

material was returned to the trenches again by the same method after back filling

by hand over the exposed sensitive remains. A total of 170m square were exposed

for the purposes of excavation, with a contingency of 15m square of trenching

which was not required in this instance.

3.2 Three proposed evaluation trenches were excavated in this manner with Trench 1

opened over the eastern profile of the earthworks associated with the ditch and

outer bank of the monument (Figs. 7 & 9). The trench was orientated east/west and

measuring 10.00m by 5.00m. The trench was stepped to create a secure working

area and a series of sondages were excavated in order to ascertain the full depth of

the ditch and composition of the inner earthwork in section with a c. 1.00m by

1.00m sondage (Slot D) excavated against the central area of the north-facing

section of the trench to reveal the stratigraphic profile and full depth of the ditch.

The western extent of the trench extended into the profile of the mound (Slot C) but

did not achieve a true-profile of the inner earthwork on this side as the up-cast layer

would have been seriously compromised through undercutting.

3.3 Trench 2 was opened in the south-eastern quadrant of the monument in an attempt

to ascertain if any internal structures could be identified as recorded on the plan of

1842 and their level of survivability (Figs. 7, 10 & 11). An area visible on aerial

photographs as a slightly raised platform, a possible levelling layer for a building

was a main contender for such as structure in this area and Trench 2 was sited

accordingly. The trench measured c. 20.00m by 3.00m, orientated east-west,

roughly parallel/directly above Trench 1 in the ditch below. However, no physical

evidence of structural activity was revealed apart from the compact up-cast

sandstone stone levelling and raising layer [contexts (103)/(104)] and a large

spread of random angular/sub-angular sandstone (101)/(102) from robber pit

disturbance and intermittent collapse of the monument itself. A small sondage (Slot

A) was excavated central to the area on the raised platform to a depth of 1.00m

which identified the continuation of the sandstone levelling deposit at this depth. It

was deemed unnecessary to excavate this further.

In the eastern extent of Trench 2 however, the dressed stone ashlar face of the

internal rampart wall was revealed, running around the circumference of the

earthwork in this part of the site, concordant with the stonework identified in the

previous season of excavation in the north-west corner of the site. Associated with

this in situ defensive wall, was the external stone revetment wall, which extended

over the eastern profile of the mound and had suffered from significant collapse

over the eastern profile and into the ditch below. Trench 2 was extended to the east


running east over the eastern embankment in order to ascertain the outer limit of

the collapsed stone revetment. Likewise, a sondage (Slot B) was excavated into the

deposits between the internal curtain wall (108) and the outer revetment wall (109)

in order to establish the relationship between the two defensive installations.

3.4 The remaining Trench 3 was opened central to the perceived northern entrance

(Figs. 7, 12 & 13). The trench measured 20.00m by 3.00m, and was orientated

east/west in order to evaluate the nature of the original entrance into the monument

and any associated structural or defensive remains. It was also sited in order to

continue investigation of the northern curtain wall, revealed in 2007, in the north-

west corner/quadrant of the site. As a result, the western limit of excavation

extended so far as to take into account the eastern-most extent of Trench 1 from

2007 and in so doing, the inner face of the (inner) rampart wall was revealed,

continuing to the east. This area also took in a large area of incursion from robber

trenches dug in the nineteenth century.

The trench extended to the east, incorporating some earth-fast mounds which

signified the internal approach into the monument from the causeway and finally

incorporating the northern curtain wall (177) and outer revetment (178) on the

eastern side of the entrance. The trench was extended slightly to the north in order

to establish the continuation of metalled surfaces in the entrance [171] and to

incorporate the external dimensions of the perceived gatehouse structure [157],

situated on the western side of the entrance. A small test pit (TP1) c. 1.0m by 1.0m

was excavated to the south-west of trench 3 in order to try and determine the extent

and possible return of the south-west corner of this structure, however, this area

had been truncated by later intrusive activity and no in-situ structural remains were

identified as a result.

A sondage (Slot E) was excavated through the deposits between walls (178) and

(177) at the eastern extent of the trench in order to investigate inner and outer

elevations of the perceived ashlar faced curtain wall (Figs 12, 13 & 25).

Several sondages were excavated through the metalled surface deposits

(170/173/174) in the entrance in order to investigate phasing associated with

evidence for building/repair work in the initial construction of the monument and

the longevity of occupation at the site. Further sondages were excavated along the

axis of wall (164) (Slot F) and wall (152) (Slot H) in order to establish the nature

and depth of the foundations for the gatehouse structure [157] and any associated

pristine deposits alluding to the occupation of the site. Likewise Slot G and Slot J

were excavated against walls (167) and the western elevation of wall (152)

respectively, in order to establish the parameters and foundations of the remains

associated with gatehouse [157].

Primary topsoil deposits were initially excavated with the help of a mechanical

digger in Trenches 1 and 3 and subsequently all trenches were excavated by hand

until the first archaeological layers were uncovered, whereupon further sondages

were excavated to investigate any perceived archaeological features such as the

curtain wall, metalled floor surfaces and foundation deposits associated with walls.

Measured section and plan drawings were made of all archaeological deposits at a

scale of 1:10 and 1:20 as appropriate with enumerated contexts and related to an

ordnance datum. A photographic record of all phases, features and structures was

also generated in digital format.

Trench locations were surveyed using a Total Station Theodolite and datalogger


which was subsequently downloaded to a PC and processed using a CAD system.

A topographic survey was carried out detailing the profile of the earthwork and

associated bank and ditch on a north-south/east-west axis (Figs. 14 & 15).

All safety requirements as identified in the Risk Assessment were upheld. UMAU

carried out a risk assessment in accordance with UMAU, University of Manchester,

HSE and SCAUM health and Safety guidelines.

The work was monitored by Norman Redhead, County Archaeologist for Greater

Manchester, GMAU.

3.6 Key to Plans and Sections

(***) = fill/layer/structure contexts

[***] = cut contexts/ discreet structures

All spot heights are in metres Above Ordnance Datum


Fig. 7: Plan of extant earthworks at Buckton Castle showing 2007 and 2008 trench

locations and WWII STRAFISH (bottom left)

Fig. 8: Aerial photograph of extant earthworks of Buckton Castle, showing robber trench

disturbance in western extent of monument and 2008 trench locations (shown in red)


4. Results

In this report all fills are in rounded brackets (***) and features/cuts in squared

brackets [***]. Features will be named and denoted by their principal cut number

(see Appendix 2 for a summary list of contexts). The principal features and layers

referred to in this section are represented in (Figs. 9 - 13 & 16 - 25).

4.1 Trench 1 (Figs. 7, 9 & 16)

Description

This trench was located on the eastern extent of the earthwork, incorporating a

profile across the ditch on this side of the mound, extending from the top of the

eastern external bank, to the return profile on the eastern side of the mound. This

trench was sited so as to ascertain the full depth of the original ditch, and achieve a

profile in section from the exterior of the monument to the internal

earthwork/mound. The trench was also positioned in order to ascertain the true

nature and composition of the fabric of the mound and identify any discreet phases

of construction as evident in the fills of the ditch. The ditch had suffered from a

build-up of debris and become significantly earth-fast as with much of the

monument. Also in this area, early 20th century disturbance from the construction

of a military installation known as a ‘starfish’ had potentially disturbed and

subsequently contaminated this part of the site. The trench measured c. 10.00m

long, 5.00m at its widest point, orientated east to west as a parallel-sided trench

across the profile of the eastern side of the monument. The full depth of the trench

extended to 10m below the height of the eastern earthwork of the mound, however

only the eastern rock-cut profile of the ditch was ascertained as the western profile

extended under the fragmented sandstone scree up-cast layer which comprised the

make-up of the mound itself and would have seriously undermined the stability of

the earthwork. The maximum width of the ditch in profile from the top of the

trench section was approximately 8.00m wide.

A very thin layer of modern ‘turf’ (216) and formative peat (214) was removed to

reveal a layer of large sub-angular pieces of stone (213) representative of the

collapsed rough ashlar stone blocks from the outer revetment wall. These large

stone blocks had cascaded into the feature; overlying similar rubble fills from

previous phases of deposition into the rock-cut ditch.

At the eastern end, the trench continued up the outer embankment, stopping short

of the full profile after the primary cut of the ditch was ascertained. The full depth

of the ditch from the top of the profile on this (eastern) side was c. 3.90m, the

eastern profile of the cut descending sharply for the uppermost 2.70m and then

levelling off sharply, forming a shallow step for approximately 1.00m and then

dropping sharply again another c. 0.90m, forming a secondary ‘v’-shaped profile.

The irregular profile of the feature is the result of the fractured and laminated

nature of the natural sandstone bedrock, the up-cast material from which, was used

as a raising/construction and levelling deposit for the inner mound, contexts (211)

and (212), visible on the western profile of the ditch section (Figs. 9 & 16) and

extending beneath the foundation of wall (109) on the upper embankment of the

mound, evident in Trench 2/08.

The western profile of the section across the ditch was not fully excavated as the

overlying sandstone make-up layers of the mound would have been seriously

compromised, resulting in collapse and subsidence into the ditch. As a result, the


trench was stepped in a series of sondages, Slot C providing the only fully

excavated portion of the ditch on the eastern profile, with Sondage D allowing a

further 0.60m of the most central portion of the ditch to be excavated to its full

depth, at least on the eastern side. The archaeological deposits within the ditch

indicated at least three distinct episodes in the deposition and formation of material

within the feature had occurred and even the suggestion of a possible re-cut event.

The primary cut for the ditch [201] incorporated a roughly ‘v’-shaped profile (the

western profile remains unexcavated), with a stepped outcrop roughly one third of

the way up. This cut is filled with several successive phases of primary in-wash and

slumpage, mostly by a mixture of clayey sand and small sub-angular fragments of

sandstone (primary fill (202)), and in-washed waterlogged silty clayey-sand

(secondary fill (203)). These initial depositional events were rapid and sporadic and

indicative of an open-feature, with secondary slumpage from the eastern outer bank

occurring as a result of water-action and wind-borne erosion (contexts (204), (205),

(206)). The final phase of natural deposition into the ditch, visible on the eastern

extent of the section is represented by a silty clay deposit (207), a homogenous

layer of redeposited natural, effectively sealing underlying lenses of primary in-

wash. This phase can be viewed as a ‘settling-in’ period, shortly after the initial

cutting of the ditch and associated earthwork/bank. Material is settling in and

finding a natural angle of repose.

Above these initial deposits it is possible to discern a possible secondary phase of

in-filling activity, distinct in that the deposits from this point contain much of the

masonry associated with the outer revetment wall. The primary fill from this

secondary phase, (208) is a clayey silty loam with abundant medium and large

angular fragments of sandstone rubble from the original outer revetment/rampart

which lies directly above, on the eastern embankment of the inner mound.

Subsequent deposits (209) and (210) are very similar in composition, with a high

incidence of medium to large sub-angular and angular roughly hewn sandstone

blocks, within a dark peaty loam matrix. This material is poorly sorted suggesting

that is may not have been the result of natural slumpage into the ditch. Overlying

these fills is a large centrally deposited accumulation of stone blocks (213) which

appear to be concentrated in the centre of the largely backfilled ditch. This deposit

lies against the partially excavated layers of fragmentary sandstone scree (211) and

(212) which comprise the make-up of the mound on the western profile of the

ditch, suggesting that it must have been deposited after these layers were already in

place.

Above this phase of acute stone rubble deposition within the ditch, another period

of secondary slumpage and natural in-wash of material is evident in section on both

the eastern and western profile, represented by fills (215) and (214) respectively.

These layers are subsequently sealed by a final layer of modern-day soil and

formative peat (216).

The trench was extended to the north for c. 4.50m, to ascertain the continuation of

identified archaeological deposits, partially exposing the upper fills (013) and

subsequent sandstone scree layers (211/212) on the western profile, and formative

peat build-up (214) on the eastern extent of the trench.

4.2 Trench 2 (Figs. 7, 10 & 11)

Description

The principal reason for opening Trench 2 was to identify and assess any physical

remains/evidence for internal structures relating to the medieval ground plan of the


site referenced/depicted on the 1842 map of the earthworks. The trench was also

positioned so as to take into account the eastern embankment/earthworks and

ascertain the nature of the fortifications/defences in this area of the site i.e. the

continuation of the mural curtain wall and outer revetment.

The trench measured c. 17.40m east-west by c. 3.00m north-south, extended to

9.60m to form a T-shape at the eastern end so as to accommodate the alignment of

the internal rampart/curtain wall (108), as well as being extended over the eastern

embankment to ascertain the full extent of the outer revetment wall (109), and to

the north, in order to identify the continuation of the inner curtain/rampart wall

(108) in that direction.

The majority of the western expanse of the trench, which covered an area visible as

a slightly raised platform on the inner plateaux of the mound, was composed

primarily of fragmented, loose and heavily disturbed layers of small to medium

fragments of angular sandstone chippings, layers (101) and (102). These levelled

deposits were interspersed with overburden from the overlying soil and peat

deposits which had subsequently caused some staining and darkening of the

deposits in this area, giving the appearance of disturbance from intrusive activity.

Slot A was excavated in order to ascertain the depth and composition of the

platform in this area, and a rectangular slot measuring 0.80m by 1.30m was hand

excavated to a depth of 0.70m which confirmed the general composition/make-up

of the mound to be up-cast sandstone chippings (excavated from the cutting of the

ditch) to at least this depth. Similar deposits, (103) and (104) were identified under

the uppermost levelling layers comprising a mixture of sandstone fragments in a

degraded sandstone matrix, extending under the foundations of walls (108) and

butting up against the outer revetment/curtain wall (109).

To the east of the trench, solid in-situ structural remains were identified, associated

with localised pockets of yellowish-white/brown clay (105), (106) and (107)

directly in front of the inner face of wall (108). These discreet deposits could

represent residual material associated with the bonding fabric of walls or timber

structures in the immediate area, possibly as part of a structure evinced by wall

(108).

The extant feature in Trench 2 however, was the inner ‘curtain’ wall running

around the top of the embankment in a curvi-linear profile on the eastern side of the

site. This feature is earth-fast in the unexcavated areas of the site but evidence for a

substantial ashlar-faced curtain wall was identified during evaluation work in 2007

on the western side of the monument, and the presence of wall (108) in the eastern

portion of the site appears to take the same form as that identified on the west. The

internal façade is faced with a single course of dressed, regularly sized stone blocks

behind which is an indurated stone rubble core, the entire structure measuring c.

1.80m in diameter (c. 7 ft - 8 ft wide). There was no evidence of bonding material

but the entire feature was compacted, although it survived in plan only to a

(maximum) height of c. 0.45m, being only one course high, with the foundation

stones sat directly on top of layer (103). The northern extent of the wall appeared to

be less robust and the depth of the foundations on the inner (west) face was not

ascertained.

A large irregular intrusion, interpreted as disturbance caused by robber activity, had

removed the structural material at the end of wall (108) in the southern arm of the

extended trench, denoted by cut context [191]. A large section of the inner rubble

core and outer facing blocks had been removed and a recess, in-filled with

redeposited dark topsoil, measuring c. 1.40m east-west, 2.80m north-south was


evident. At this point, the external face of the curtain wall was not distinguishable

as the intrusion had disturbed the blocks which demarcated the outer face of the

rampart wall (108) and the internal face of the outer revetment wall (109). Wall

(108) appeared to continue and extend to the south.

Slot B was manually excavated between the internal curtain/rampart wall (108) and

the external revetment wall (109). This sondage was excavated to a depth of c.

1.00m and did not ascertain the full depth of the foundations for either structure in

this part of the site, as the gap between the two walls was too narrow to allow

access beyond this depth. The material filling the cavity between the two walls

comprised degraded or even pulverised sandstone (103), with occasional small

sandstone fragments. However, no datable archaeological material was recovered

from this deposit.

The dressed stone ashlar western elevation of wall (109) was visible in Slot B to at

least a depth of 1.00m below the extant level of wall (108). The inner face of wall

(109) ran parallel with the external limit of wall (108) which did not appear to have

any faced-block façade (as evident in 2007). Wall (109) had suffered from serious

collapse, extending down the eastern profile of the embankment/mound for a

further c. 3.60m beyond the western elevation identified in Slot B. The stone

blocks used in its construction appeared to be very roughly worked, angular and

sub-angular, locally acquired yellow sandstone and were much larger than those

used in the construction of wall (108). The same type of material was evident in fill

(213) of the ditch [201], in trench 1, located directly below the eastern extent of

Trench 2. No architectural masonry, (i.e. carved mullions/lintels) was identified in

either the in situ stonework or redeposited material in the ditch fills.

4.3 Trench 3 (Figs. 7, 12, 13, 17 - 25)

Description

The trench measured c. 15.30m long (east to west) and c. 10.20m wide (north-

south) (Figs. 12 & 13) and was opened up over the central area of the northern

entrance and associated earthworks/defences. The top ‘turf’ layer (001)/(150) was

partially removed by mechanical digger and subsequently hand-excavated to reveal

in-situ structural remains.

The north western corner of the monument to the western side of the northern

entrance was excavated during the 2007 season of fieldwork and had been placed

so as to investigate the possibility of an ashlar wall seen in previous archaeological

evaluations. Unfortunately this area has been subject to much unauthorised

attention in the past and is the area indicated, on Watson’s plan of 1777, as being

the location of extensive treasure hunting by local people in 1730.

In the western area of the Trench 3, the continuation of the inner face of the

northern rampart wall (151) was identified, following the same axis as the section

revealed during the 2007 excavations (017) projecting from the north-west corner

of the monument. The partially visible internal (southern) elevation of wall (151)

had sandstone ashlar blocks dressing a rough rubble core. This section of wall

extended west for c. 2.00m where wall (152), aligned north-south formed a right-

angle, apparently keyed into the inner face of the rampart wall (151). The

excavation of Slot J against the western elevation of wall (152) revealed it to be c.

1.00m deep, with approximately seven courses still in-tact below the primary

surface of the trench. The western elevation of wall (152) was dressed with rough

ashlar masonry and was randomly coursed (Fig. 19) although no bonding material


was evident. The wall had been severely truncated at the southern end by intrusive

activity from the insertion of a robber pit [153]. Below the bottom course at the

northern end a further sondage revealed the presence of a light grey gritty silty-

sand deposit (155) underlying the base of wall (152) at a depth of 1.20m to 1.80m.

Below this, another deposit of mid yellow-brown silty-sand (156) continued to a

depth of c. 2.20m at which point the dark peat layer (007) was evident, sampled

during 2007. In the opposing south-facing section of Slot J, the coursing of wall

(151) extended to a depth of c. 2.20m, the lower courses appearing slightly

damaged, with blocks missing in places.

This western area of the trench had been severely truncated and disturbed by the

insertion of a large robber trench, represented by cut [153] and filled with a mixed

black-brown peat and redeposited topsoil deposit, with inclusions of disturbed

sandstone rubble and 19th and 20

th-century artefactual evidence. Indeed, Slot H,

excavated along the eastern elevation of wall (152), confirmed the level of

intrusion in this area, producing a single pipe bowl/stem from the excavated deposit

(159). The eastern elevation of wall (152) had been removed of its ashlar face with

the rubble core exposed (Fig. 20), presumably as a result of the 19th-century

incursion. Slot I was excavated in the south-west corner of Trench 3 to ascertain

the depth and level of intrusion from the robber trench through the pristine

archaeological deposit (154) in this area. The full depth of the pit was not

ascertained but it was clear that the activity had disturbed a large amount of

masonry from its primary context and severely truncated the associated

archaeological deposits in this area of the site.

To the east of wall (152) a large area of 19th-century disturbance (159) had

disrupted the archaeological deposits to a depth of at least c. 2.00m. However,

excavations further to the east revealed evidence for a parallel wall (164), aligned

north-south, running roughly down the centre of the trench. This wall was exposed

for a length of c. 6.00m, with a maximum width of 0.85m. The northern end of

(164) butted wall (160), running east-west at the northern extent of Trench 3 (Fig.

21a/b). At its southern end, wall (164) had suffered from nineteenth-century

disturbance but appeared to form a right-angled return, with wall (167) projecting

back towards the west. In this south-east corner a small, sub-square stone-lined

post-socket [166] was evident, comprising four stone slabs, arranged on-end (Fig.

12), similar to feature [189] in the north-eastern extent of the gateway identified as

a timber post-socket.

Slot F was excavated along the western elevation of wall (164) to a depth of c.

1.00m, with a further sondage excavated in the south-east corner, exposing

coursing for wall (164) to a depth of 1.20m (Fig. 21b). The upper coursing for wall

(164) was extant for the most part, with up to three courses surviving, with the

exception of the mid-section of the wall where at least five courses had survived,

with a noticeable collapse event forming a slumped elevation to the east. The wall

comprised roughly dressed sandstone evident in the upper courses, whereas the

lower footings appeared to have extant ashlar blocks. No evidence for bonding

material associated with the wall was evident, however a small localised deposit of

white lime-mortar (161) was visible in the north-east corner, formed by wall (164)

and (160), which would suggest that organic bonding materials used in the

construction of the walls may have perished as a result of the natural soil acidity.

A possible phase-break in the coursing was evident on the western elevation of

wall (164), c. 2.00m from the northern extent of the wall (Figs. 12 & 21b). Closely

associated with this possible phase-break was the continuation of a stone kerb

(162)/(188), running east-west roughly under wall (164) and projecting into the


metalled surfaces of the entrance [171]. This stone kerb was roughly faced on its

southern elevation, forming a ‘row’ of stones, one course wide. A single stone

(162) projected under wall (164) on the western side but the alignment may project

further to the west, under the unexcavated rubble baulk (158).

Within the sondage in Slot F two cut features, [186] and [187] ran roughly parallel

with wall (164). Only the western horizon of cut [186] was visible as the eastern

extent of the feature had been truncated by the foundations of wall (164). This

feature was roughly ‘v’-shaped in profile, filled by (165); a compacted deposit of

brown silt, chocked with sub-rounded pebbles, extending under post-socket [166]

to the south. Cut [187] ran roughly parallel with this feature but had been severely

truncated by cut [153] for the robber trench. Both features were excavated to a

maximum depth of c. 1.0m below the surface of the trench.

Overlying cuts [186] and [187] was a large spread of material (163); a mixture of

mid-yellow degraded sandstone, with abundant small to medium sandstone

fragments. This deposit extended across the internal area formed by walls (152) in

the west and wall (164) to the east, extending under the rubble baulk (158) to the

north. This layer had also been truncated by the insertion of the robber pit [153].

To the north of the remaining rubble collapse (158), wall (160) formed a northern

limit of the area. Running east-west across the northern extent of the trench, wall

(160) terminated in/formed a right-angle with the northern extent of wall (164).

The internal (southern) elevation of wall (160) was faced with ashlar blocks, and

six courses were exposed, to a depth of 1.20m below the surface of the trench (Fig.

21a). This section of wall appeared relatively in-tact, however the external

parameter of the wall could not be distinguished, as this part of the structure

appears to form part of the outer revetment/curtain wall (151), butting wall (151) to

the west but projecting northwards, beyond the east-west alignment of the main

curtain wall on the western side of the entrance. The outer façade of this section of

the entrance defences had subsequently collapsed into the ditch below. As in the

north-east corner, formed by the abutment of wall (164) and (160), the north-west

corner of the structure is keyed into the main body of the northern curtain wall

(151), the eastern elevation of wall (152) forming the adjoining western wall at this

point (Figs. 12 & 13). The curtain wall (151) at this point measures c. 2.90m in

diameter.

The southern wall of the apparent sub-square structure is provided by wall (167),

running east-west, and lies approximately 6.50m to the south of wall (160). This

section of wall was exposed for only a short section, measuring c. 3.00m from the

south-east corner, formed by the abutment to wall (164). The internal (northern)

elevation had been badly damaged by the robber pit [153], the maximum extant

diameter measuring 0.70m. Slot G was excavated to the south of this wall,

providing an external (southern) elevation for wall (167) (Fig. 22), showing

coursing to a depth of 2.40m below the present surface. In-tact ashlar sandstone

blocks were evident. However, the wall itself had suffered heavy damage to the

west, where the blocks had been removed and subsequently formed part of deposit

(169). To the south of Slot I, outside the limit of excavation of Trench 3, a small

test pit (Test Pit 1), was excavated in order to identify the south-west corner-return

of the gatehouse structure [157]. No in situ structural evidence was located, only

mixed deposits associated with backfilling and up-cast from robber activity.

Walls (152) to the west, (164) to the east, (160) to the north and (167) to the south

formed a sub-rectangular structure, located off the western side of the northern

entrance to the monument. This structure, collectively represented as context [157],


has been interpreted as a square gatehouse, projecting north beyond the northern

curtain wall, overlooking the causewayed entrance to the site. This structure was

partially backfilled internally by the deposit of rubble collapse (158); the amount of

rubble overburden suggesting that it could have had multiple/secondary storeys.

The interior, specifically the south-western corner and southern extent of the

gatehouse, had been heavily damaged by the robber pit [153], which had

completely removed sections of wall in these areas.

To the east of the gatehouse, wall (164) formed the western wall of the entrance

area [171]. This north-south orientated wall was set on dressed stone footings (172)

and a parallel wall (175) was constructed in a similar manner, with stone footings

(176), lying approximately 3.30m to the east, on the opposing side of the entrance.

Like wall (164), wall (175) was orientated north-south and had also suffered from

inverted slumpage along its mid-section, but suggestive of a possible arched

gateway/entrance. Wall (175) measured c. 1.50m in height (Fig. 24) and effectively

banking-up/ revetting the outer curtain wall (178) and internal rampart wall (181),

continuing to the east in this area of the site (Figs. 12 & 13). Wall (175) was

exposed for a length of c. 4.00m in section, running north-south on the eastern side

of the entrance [171], terminating to the north in a possible post-socket, [189],

similar in form to [166] in the south-east corner of the gatehouse [157]. The wall at

this point appeared to be keyed into the external curtain wall (178); however, the

exact relationship between these features was masked by the trench overburden and

rubble collapse of the outer revetment in this area. To the west, the northern extent

of wall (164) appears to form an opposing passage for the western limit of the

entrance, projecting/extending further north, out onto the area of the causeway at

this point. A section of overburden and baulk was left in-tact against wall (164)

within entrance [171] in order to sure-up the masonry collapse and retain the

original form of the wall, and also to illustrate the stratigraphic relationship

between the archaeological deposits in the entrance.

The uppermost deposit sealing the underlying layers in the area of the entrance is a

thin layer of topsoil and modern formative peat (001)/(150) to a depth of 0.10m.

Underlying this layer is a deposit of mid grey-brown loamy sand (193) representing

secondary redeposited material as a result of 18th and 19th century intrusive activity

in the area of the gatehouse [157] and entrance [171]. This deposit contains

randomly sorted medium and large angular fragments of sandstone masonry to a

depth of 0.30m. below this is a layer of primary formative peat and soil (180),

maximum depth 0.50m, which began to form after an initial phase of collapse or

disturbance of the structural material associated with the gatehouse, represented by

underlying layer (192); effectively the same as layer (158) in gatehouse [157].

Below this thick layer of demolition/disturbance activity layer (185) represents a

thin spread of debris, maximum depth 0.70m, from which a range of datable

artefactual evidence was recovered (Appendix 4) along with burnt material which

was sampled for radiocarbon dating. This deposit effectively sealed the underlying

metalled surface (170) of the entrance, one of a series of at least three

superimposed compacted sandstone floor surfaces, with (174) and (173) forming

the primary and secondary surfaces respectively. The uppermost surface (170) was

visible in section to a depth of c. 1.10m and produced no datable material. A

possible post hole [182] was centrally placed within the entrance, visible in plan in

surface (170) (Fig. 17). This discreet sub-circular feature measured c. 0.5m in plan,

with a maximum depth of 0.30m with medium sandstone packing material

arranged around the circumference of the feature.

Forming a discreet deposit over (170) was a spread of compact yellow clay

associated with the rubble collapse of wall (164) and contemporary with (185) in


the western area of the entrance. Sondages were excavated through surface (170) to

expose underlying surfaces (173); comprising small to medium angular/sub-

angular sandstone fragments in a compacted yellow-brown sand, and underlying

surface (174), comprising medium to large sandstone fragments similar to (173)

but through which ran a uni-facetted stone kerb (188), roughly faced to the south

and effectively bordering the two surfaces.

Beyond the eastern wall (175) of the entrance, the remnants of the internal rampart

wall extended to the east, running roughly parallel with the external curtain wall

(178). A row of facetted sandstone blocks (181) demarcated the inner (southern

elevation) edge for the stone rampart but much of the masonry had been disturbed

or removed as a result of robber/intrusive activity. On a disjointed spread of mid

yellow small sandstone fragments (177) gave any indication of the internal

levelling layers associated with the structural remains in this part of the trench.

Directly to the north of wall (181), the remains of the external curtain/revetment

wall (178) skirted the exterior of the mound and Slot E was excavated between

walls (181) and (178) to ascertain the level of survivability, nature and depth of the

foundations for both structures on the eastern flank of the entrance. Deposit (179);

a thick deposit of loose sandstone fragments and yellow sand had been used to in-

fill the space between the two defensive structures but produced no datable

material. The southern elevation of wall (178) was visible to a depth of 0.60m (not

fully excavated), showing at least six courses of dressed ashlar blocks still extant

(Fig. 25).


5. Discussion

5.1 Trench 1

The excavation of Trench 1 across the eastern section of the ditch revealed

evidence for three possible phases of distinct activity associated with firstly, the

original excavation of the rock-cut ditch; the construction of the inner mound; and

lastly, the ultimate demise/decommissioning of the monument as indicated by the

accumulation of archaeological deposits evident in the ditch itself.

Phase one includes the original excavation or cutting of the ditch, synonymous with

the construction of the inner mound, as the material excavated from the ditch was

used to raise the level of the interior by at least 1.00m across the site. After the

original cutting of the ditch, represented by context [201], a period of time elapsed

during which primary sediments and wind-borne material may have gradually

settled in the open ditch, and natural settlement of soils occurred in the base of the

feature. These deposits are represented by primary slumpage and erosion into the

ditch by fills (202), (203), (204), (205) and (206) which are visible in the eastern

part of the section (Fig. 16). The basal fills (202) and (203) are below the water-

table in this part of the site and were water-logged as a result. These primary

depositional events were sealed by a layer of fine silty-clay (207), evident in the

eastern part of the section, as a result of water-borne run-off into the eastern profile

of the ditch. Clearly these initial deposits were accumulating naturally and

sporadically and their build-up would suggest that there was no active maintenance

of the ditch during this time. It is impossible to identify over what period of time

these primary depositional events would have taken place, but certainly they

represent some of the earliest phases of deposition after the initial excavation of the

defensive ditched enclosure was first constructed.

Phase two is distinguished by evidence of a possible re-cut of the ditch, represented

by context [217], which appears to have to followed the same profile of the original

cut on the eastern outer embankment, but did not achieve the same depth as the

original ditch, following a more ‘u’-shaped profile, with a maximum depth of c.

3.20m from the top of the eastern section. The western profile of this cut was not

fully excavated for safety reasons. Although the suggestion of a re-cut for the ditch

is tenuous, there was a clear difference in the nature of the fills both above and

below this apparent hiatus, with the fills (contexts (202) to (207)) below appearing

more homogenous, primarily comprising clayey-silts or degraded sands with small

fragments of naturally occurring laminated sandstone indicative of gradual and

intermittent natural deposition of deposits into the ditch. Whereas the overlying

fills (contexts (208), (209), (210), (213)) appeared markedly different in

consistency, comprising randomly sorted, medium and large angular and sub-

angular blocks of sandstone in a darker peat and loam matrix, with occasional

discreet lumps of clay, indicative of manual backfilling or the systematic collapse

of structural remains from the eastern rampart and revetment walls of the inner

mound. These deposits reflect rapid events of accidental structural collapse of

mural defences from above, or perhaps the dismantlement of these structures

actively, or even passive collapse as a result of structural decay. Indeed some of the

stone rubble in the ditch is likely to have been the result of removal from its

primary context as a result of eighteenth and nineteenth-century intrusive robber

trench activity. In any case, the evidence provided by the accumulation of

archaeological deposits in the ditch would support the idea of a secondary phase of

modification to the defences of the castle in general, perhaps a relatively extensive


overhaul of the outer rampart and associated earthworks.

Phase three represents the accumulation of formative peat and aeolian soils over the

upper rubble fills of the now nearly backfilled ditch. These deposits are represented

by deposits (214) and (215) which are possibly post-medieval in date as sporadic

finds recovered from these layers suggest some 19th and 20th century intrusion has

occurred, possibly from the construction of the ‘starfish’ to the south of the open

trench.

5.2 Trench 2

The large expanse of fragmented yellow sandstone in the western extent of the

trench (Figs. 10 & 11) is similar in composition to the layers (211) and (212)

associated with the eastern profile of the mound, visible in section in Trench 1

(Fig. 16). The large spread of similar material could represent demolition or

collapse of structural remains in the area of the raised platform in the south-east

corner of the site; however, no identifiable architectural fragments were evident

amongst the rubble.

The yellow sandstone layers encountered in Trenches 1 and 2 (2008), and

represented by contexts (003), (004) and (005) in Trench 2/07 are common to

upland areas of Tameside and have been identified at other sites, such as at

Werneth Low (Roberts et al, 2006, 36) and are usually taken to represent natural

deposits being the same in all but hue, probably due to the effects of weathering.

However, the very fragmented nature of these layers may suggest that they are

redeposited natural. No discernible overlying surfaces were revealed during the

excavation of Trench 2/08 and if the upper layers of sandstone had been modified

by weathering it is possible that they may have represented a habitation level

associated with the castle. However, no archaeological features or artefacts were

discovered to support this theory and it is possible that any surfaces may have been

eroded away. If the yellow sandstone layer was artificially re-deposited as a raising

layer during the construction of the castle the question is proffered as to why? The

possibility is that the sandstone layer could have been used to raise the castle

interior above the boggy natural ground, manifest as a spongy peat layer overlying

saturated grey silt identified in excavated sondages at the base of wall (152) in

Trench 3/08 and at the base of Trench 2/07.

The most tangible evidence for structural activity associated with the castle

defences is the presence of a substantial stone wall structure, skirting the perimeter

of the inner mound/earthwork. This inner rampart/curtain wall (108) appears to be

a distinctly different structure to that identified on the western profile of the

monument in 2007 (Trench 2/07) and not a continuation of the same feature

identified on the western extent of the mound in the 2007 excavations, although the

two features do share a similar construction method of an internal ashlar façade of

stones fronting a compacted rubble core, approximately 2.20m (c. 7 1/2 ft) wide.

The internal rampart wall is countered by an external revetment wall (109), which

could represent a separate phase of building activity relating to the principal

construction of the defences. It is unclear at present how these features directly

relate to each other, as excavated sondages between the walls in Trench 2/08 (Slot

B) and Trench 3/08 (Slot E) revealed evidence for a pulverised sandstone in-

fill/packing between the inner and outer walls; context (103) and (179)

respectively, which ran under the internal wall foundations of (108) but butted

against the outer wall (109), suggesting that the outer revetment wall (109) could

represent one of the earliest phases of structural activity associated with the

defensive complex at Buckton Castle.


However, no datable artefactual material was recovered from either sondage in

Trenches 2/08 or 3/08, suggesting that the walls could have equally been

contemporary structures (i.e. built at roughly the same time). Inevitably, the outer

revetment wall had suffered from considerable collapse, and extended down the

eastern profile of the mound for a further 3.00m. Stone rubble in the upper ditch

fills suggests that this may have been the result of either active decommissioning of

the monument after abandonment or part of a structural collapse as a result of poor

construction techniques in the eastern area of the site, or purely natural decay of the

structural stability of the monument as a result of the natural erosion/unstable

nature.

5.3 Trench 3

Excavations in Trench 3 exposed the first solid evidence for structural activity

associated with the original entrance to the monument. The area had been heavily

truncated by late eighteenth and nineteenth-century illicit excavation activity in the

area of the gatehouse but enough in-situ structural evidence remained to indicate

the presence of a gatehouse [157], off the western flank of the northern entrance

[171]. This roughly sub-rectangular structure comprised four walls; (152) and (164)

constituting the western and eastern walls respectively, and walls (160) and (167)

forming the northern and southern walls. All walls were consistently faced with

ashlar blocks of sandstone fronting a sandstone rubble core, which has been

inadvertently exposed through robber activity on partial sections of the eastern

elevation of wall (152) in Slot H. The northern extent of the gatehouse structure

was ‘embedded’/incorporated into the external northern curtain wall (151), running

east-west in this area of the site, with wall (160) butting the outer rampart at this

point, and wall (152) keyed into the outer rampart wall (151), indicating that this

could have been the formed part of the primary phase of mural defences, rather

than being a secondary phase of modification.

The northern façade of the gatehouse itself appears to project out beyond the

perimeter of this mural defence, onto the causeway. This gatehouse structure was

sub-rectangular in plan, suggesting that the gatehouse would have projected as a

square structure beyond the rampart, suggesting an early date for the construction

based on typological criteria and comparison with contemporary monuments with

similar tower plans. Taken alongside the quantity of rubble in-fill represented by

deposit (158), this would suggest that the gatehouse structure could have been at

least two storeys high, and possibly extended across the entrance [171] to the east,

as similar rubble and debris deposits were identified in a section through the

overburden in this area (Fig. 23)

A possible phase break in the northern section of wall (164) could hint at multiple

phases of construction, with the suggestion of a blocked entrance leading from the

entrance approach [171], into the north-east corner of the gatehouse itself visible in

the west-facing elevation of wall (164). An enigmatic row of kerb stones (188)

running east-west and embedded into the secondary metalled surface (173) of the

entrance, appears to project under wall (164) in conjunction with the possible break

in phasing. This kerb appears to demarcate the boundary between two different

metalled surfaces in the entrance and could be associated with a portcullis or gate

which would have ultimately closed the entrance. This feature was mirrored by the

presence of a post hole [182] in the overlying metalled surface (170), centrally

positioned within the entrance and has been interpreted as possibly related to the

modification of the entrance, suggestive of scaffolding for a wooden forma to

support the construction of an arched gateway. Clearly the truncation of the


uppermost surface (170) by this feature would suggest that this may have been one

of the last phases of construction/modification activity associated with the

monument and is unusual for that fact. No datable material was excavated from this

feature.

Overlying the surfaces and post hole was a spread of burnt material, principally

clay and silt, which provided the only datable artefactual material to-date,

contemporary with the construction of the monument. Layer (185) produced

habitation waste in the form of datable ceramic evidence, bone, and charcoal

indicative of occupation debris. It is suggested that this layer may have been part of

a structural collapse of apartments immediately above the entrance, again

supporting the idea of a two-storey building at the entrance. The clay is partially

scorched in discreet patches, indicative of a demolition event as a result of fire;

however, there was no evidence for structural timbers associated with this collapse

or an intense heat which would have vitrified parts of the surface.

Above these sealed deposits, several episodes of rubble collapse, possibly as a

result of natural demise of the structural remains, and subsequent re-deposition of

material as a consequence of illicit excavations, created a build-up of demolition

rubble; deposits (192) and (193) and intermittent formative peat and soil (180) over

the in-tact deposits of the entrance and gatehouse.

To the east of the entrance, the opposing wall for the ‘passage’ remained partially

intact, approximately 3.00m to the east of wall (164). This wall served so as to

‘square-off’ the outer revetment wall (178) and inner rampart wall (181), which

begin on the same alignment as (151), projecting east along the earthwork

perimeter. The weight of these walls against the eastern wall of the entrance (175)

has forced its near collapse, resulting in an arched profile, mirrored by the partially

collapsed section of wall (164). It is uncertain whether this configuration is

suggestive of an arched entrance or purely a result of the weight of overburden

against these north-south walls.

The internal rampart wall (181) to the east of the entrance has suffered heavily

from later disturbance and only a c. 2.50m section of the ashlar facing stones

survives to indicate its southern elevation.

The evidence from the excavation of the three trenches illustrates clear evidence for

the modification of monument evident in the phase break in wall (164), Trench

3/08, suggestive of a secondary phase of modification to the layout of the

gatehouse and the superimposition of successive metalled surfaces over the line of

‘kerb’ stones (188) running across the entrance; the construction of wall (108) over

the composite sandstone layer (103) in Trench 2/08 indicative of the modification

of the rampart and associated structures in this area built into the external

revetment/curtain wall, possibly in the form of a modified shell-keep type

structure; and the possible re-cut of the ditch on the eastern side of the mound in

Trench1/08.

These alterations to the defensive network/arrangement at Buckton Castle appear to

date to the second half of the 12th century, based on the scant but stratigraphically

secure artefactual evidence, the typological form of the structural remains and

historically attested events.


6. The Archaeological Artefactual Evidence from

Excavations at Buckton Castle 2008 by Ruth Garratt

6.1 Introduction

This assessment report concerns the archaeological material recovered during

excavations at the site of Buckton Castle, Tameside in 2008, carried out by the

University of Manchester Archaeological Unit with assistance from community

volunteers. This report does not take into account any archaeological material

recovered during the initial phases of archaeological investigation during 2007. The

assemblage was viewed by the author in June 2008.

6.1.2 Assessment Aims and Objectives

The principle aim of the present assessment is to evaluate all classes of

archaeological artefact data generated during the excavations of 2008 at the site of

Buckton Castle in order to formulate a project design for a programme of further

analysis. A statement of the significance of the results from each element of the

artefactual assemblage is given below based on the assessment work undertaken

and the original research themes expressed in the project design.

The objectives of the assessment correspond to and are prescribed by Appendix 4 of

the Management of Archaeological Projects (MAP2) document (English Heritage

1991). These stipulate:

� To assess the quantity, provenance and condition of all classes of stratigraphic,

artefactual and environmental data;

� To comment on the range and variety of the material;

� To assess the potential of the material to address new research questions raised by

the assessment;

� To formulate any further questions arising from the assessment of the excavated

data.

6.1.3 Material Assessed

The entire material archive from the excavation works was examined for the

purposes of this assessment. Quantifications are incorporated within the individual

assessment reports.

6.1.4 Procedures for Assessment

The methodologies adopted for the assessment varied depending on the class of

material under examination. All classes of find were examined in full, with

observations supplemented by the finds’ records generated during the course of

excavation. Environmental samples will be sent for analysis in order to establish

the nature of any palaeo-botanical data relevant to the deposition conditions on site.


6.1.5 Methodology

The assessment was carried out in accordance with the guidelines set out by

English Heritage in the document Management of Archaeological Projects 2nd

Edition, Appendix 4 (English Heritage 1991) and with reference to the Medieval

and Post-Medieval Research Agendas drafted by the North West Region Research

Framework (Brennand 2007, 95ff). The Minimum Standards for the Processing,

Recording, Analysis and Publication of Post-Roman Ceramics (Slowikowski et al,

2001) and the Guidelines for the Processing and Publication of Medieval Pottery

from Excavations (Blake & Davey, 1983) were also consulted during the

assessment stages.

The finds recovered from the excavation comprised various categories of material

including; Medieval, Post-medieval and Industrially produced ceramics; glass,

metalwork, clay tobacco pipes, industrial residues, ceramic building materials and

organics such as bone, shell and leather. The full contents of the assemblage are

listed in Appendix 4 of this report.

All categories of finds were examined in full, with observations supplemented by

the finds records generated during the course of the fieldwork. The finds were

categorised according to type and class and entered onto a database in order to

prepare a preliminary catalogue. The finds were then given a unique accession

number (SF No.) and digitally photographed. Full details of all recovered material

reside within the project archive held at the University of Manchester

Archaeological Unit.

6.2 The Pottery (SF 1 - 13) (Figs. 77 -87)

The pottery was examined in context groups alongside the other categories of

artefact recovered from the excavations. The ceramic material was separated off

and catalogued according to ware type and sherd family. The assessment

conformed to the minimum standards established by the Medieval Pottery

Research Group (Slowikowski et al, 2001) for the processing, recording and

analysis of Post-Roman ceramics. Each ware group within the context was

assigned a unique accession number (SF No.).

The pottery was washed, bagged and then sorted by type. The Medieval and Post-

medieval stratified pottery was divided further into individual vessels, with any

cross-context joins noted at this point. The ware types and fabrics were examined

by eye and sorted into ware groups on the basis of fabric, form, glaze and

decorative technique. An estimation of the range of forms was based on sherd

profile and diagnostic features such as rim and base fragments.

The early modern stratified pottery was grouped solely by type, the part of the

vessel represented was noted, i.e. the number of rims, base and body fragments and

any cross-vessel joins were identified.

The nineteenth and twentieth-century unstratified material recovered from the

topsoil was visually scanned and spot-dated after preliminary identification but not

quantified or described in detail.

A digital photographic archive was produced and any near complete vessels were

bagged individually.


6.2.1 The Medieval Pottery (SF 1 & 2) (Figs. 77 - 80)

Quantification

Only two contexts associated with the surfaces in the entrance to the monument

produced exclusively medieval pottery from seemingly undisturbed and

uncontaminated deposits. Context (184), a localised clay deposit representing a

possible interface between the bottom of the early-post-medieval natural

accumulation of Aeolian soils and the potentially medieval deposits below. A total

of 5 fragments of medieval pottery, representing a maximum of 2 individual

vessels, were recovered from the debris deposit (185) associated with the north-

south wall (164) on the western side of the entrance [171]. These fragments were

datable to the 11th to 13th century and represent vessels which form part of the

Gritty ware tradition of the early post-Conquest period.

Similar types have been recovered from the central Manchester area at sites

recently excavated near the medieval market centre of Salford (Garratt 2008: SF 32

and 33) and represent vessels which were part of a widespread tradition of coarse

Gritty wares.

The body sherds recovered from Buckton, like the many of the medieval ceramics

recovered from excavations in the area, are highly abraded body-sherds from larger

vessels. The group of fragments (SF1) represent a single vessel with external

sooting on the surface of one sherd suggesting that this vessel was placed in a fire,

possibly used as a cooking pot (although vessels were not necessarily prescribed a

single function and may have served several purposes). Two fragments exhibit a

relatively convex curvature suggesting that this vessel may have had a shoulder or

even a spout. However, the specific form is difficult to establish due to the

undiagnostic nature of the bodysherds. The fabric of the vessel has fired to a pink-

buff colour on the internal surface but the external surface has patchy grey and pink

areas indicative of uneven firing in the kiln. The external surface margin has also

been reduced to a grey colour in section. The clay has possibly been artificially

tempered with frequent small sub-angular quartz inclusions. The resultant

appearance is a pitted and abraded surface and as a result these types are classified

as part of the tradition of Buff Gritty wares (Cumberpatch 2007, forthcoming).

Context (184) produced a single sherd of similar Gritty ware from a jug (SF2). The

external surface appears to have a dark red-brown/purple slip and is relatively thin-

walled, suggesting it was probably a finer vessel than the Buff Gritty ware cooking

pot jar (SF1). The sherd has no evidence of uneven firing in the kiln, oxidising to a

pink-orange colour evenly over the internal surface. The external surface margin

has partially reduced but the external surface has been slipped to produce a finer

finish. There is no evidence of glaze or decoration although this could be due to the

small size of the sherd. The fabric has fewer inclusions than the SF1 group, with

moderate very small sub-rounded quartz inclusions, although their presence is still

notable.

Condition and Context

The relatively small quantity of medieval pottery recovered from the excavations at

Buckton does not allow for much speculation on the nature of the ceramic

repertoire in use at the site during the immediate post-Conquest period. The

localised recovery of the fragments also indicates that these vessels were probably

contemporary and in use at the site during its early foundation. Although the

fragments are abraded and the possibility of reconstruction is limited, the group of


sherds represented by SF1 indicate that a vessel was consumed and disposed of in a

single event, in- and around the gatehouse or entrance to the site and was

associated with other occupational debris such as charcoal, butchered animal bone

and iron carpentry nails.

The nature of the medieval pottery assemblage, largely undiagnostic and

undecorated bodysherds, means that very little can be established regarding the use,

decorative treatment and provenance of this material. However, tentative

statements regarding the form and function can be made. The SF1 group appears to

represent a utilitarian vessel probably employed in the preparation, processing and

cooking of everyday foodstuffs. The external scorching and sooting suggests that it

served a practical purpose and was probably used over or in a fire in order to heat

the contents. The fabric is relatively coarse and the vessel appears to have been

thick-walled. The uneven firing across the surface suggests that it was probably

made relatively locally as imperfections in the visual appearance of the vessel

would not have been conducive to the trade of such wares in wider markets.

Compared to the SF1 group, the single fragment (SF2) recovered from the same

area hints at the potential presence of finer vessels in use at the site during the same

period. The improvements and decorative treatment accorded to the external

surface of the vessel suggest that an element of display was a factor in its

production and that it was probably not used in the fire. Unfortunately no other

fragments were recovered which could determine the exact form of this vessel but

the decorative treatment and the fine thin-walled nature of the sherd would hint at

its use as a jug, usually associated with drinking and found more commonly in

archaeological deposits associated with high status sites, such as Castles and

Monasteries.

Clearly, the archaeological deposits associated with the entrance to the site, the

gatehouse area and metalled surfaces, were the most productive in terms of

evidence for medieval occupational activity and the preservation of in situ material

in relatively undisturbed sealed contexts. The sequence of metalled surfaces

between the walls of the gateway could represent a relatively well-stratified group

of material ranging from the medieval, and early-post-medieval with datable

ceramic evidence in a sequence of overlying fills/deposits. Only layer (185)

produced exclusively medieval pottery and even these isolated fragments spanned a

period of potentially two hundred years.

Range and Variety of Material

The fabric was examined by eye and sorted into ware groups on the basis of colour,

hardness, feel, fracture, inclusions and decoration (or manufacturing technique).

The assemblage appears to be dominated by utilitarian functional vessels in

relatively hard yet oxidised fabrics. The range of wares represented on site fits into

the pattern established elsewhere in the region such as at Ordsall Hall, Salford

(Higham 1980a/b; Garratt 2007a: 2007b) and White Carr Lane, Hale (Speakman

2003b) and adds detail to our understanding of ceramic supply in the North-West

during the medieval period, set against the contextual backdrop of, and with

particular reference to the specific historical background of Buckton Castle and the

Tame Valley more generally.

Previous antiquarian excavations on the monument effectively contaminated the

archaeological deposits in and around the gatehouse area of the inner enclosure.

This activity was evinced by the presence of intrusive eighteenth and nineteenth-


century ceramics within foundation deposits for the gatehouse walls meaning that

the majority of the assemblage was recovered from unsecure contexts. However,

the small collection of medieval ceramics appear to be from within a sealed layer

associated with a demolition or collapse event of structural material in the entrance

from possible apartments above it. This situation is relatively unique as many urban

sites within the region producing evidence for the use of medieval ceramics do not

have well-stratified sequences by which to provide an accurate phased context for

the material.

Although the assemblage contains only a small number of fragmentary sherds,

most of the fragments do not show extreme signs of post-depositional stress and

abrasion which would usually suggest they have either been disturbed through

ploughing or generally re-deposited. These sherds show signs of pre-depositional

wear and use but the fractures are relatively sharp, suggesting they were recovered

from their primary context. No cross-context joins were evident.

The medieval pottery recovered from Buckton, although not wide in variety or

date, represents some of the earliest types of medieval ceramics in the county. The

county as a whole has a shortfall of recognised and published excavated sites which

have produced stratified groups of pottery dating to the early post-Conquest period.

Likewise, there are few sites of this type in the region as a whole which provide a

historical backdrop for the excavated material. Recent excavations 10 miles to the

south at the site of Mellor, in Stockport produced fragments of Buff Gritty and

Gritty wares associated with structural evidence for an aisled hall dating to the 11th

to 13th century. The archaeological features associated with this structural evidence

also provided radiocarbon dates which produced a sequence of absolute dates to

supplement the ceramic evidence (Noble et al 2007; forthcoming). The fragments

were identified as similar to examples from West Yorkshire, thought to be

contemporary with Hillam-Type wares, which have also been recovered from

archaeological deposits at Salford, suggesting a wider trans-Pennine trade in

medieval ceramic types between West Yorkshire and the eastern border of Greater

Manchester.

Contemporary material has been recovered from well-stratified deposits in Wigan

(OAN 2006) and the Greengate area of Salford (Noble et al, 2005: OAN 2007) but

the range of medieval pottery at these sites suggests a wider and slightly later date

range than at Buckton with several ware-types providing a late 12th and early 13th

century date. Elsewhere in Salford, a large corpus of late medieval and early post-

medieval pottery has been recovered from excavations at Ordsall Hall which has

yet to be published (Thompson et al, 2006 & Bell et al 2007) but recent work at the

site has produced small fragmentary assemblages of comparable material,

indicating the potential for the early presence of medieval pottery from the late 12th

century in central Manchester and Salford (Garratt 2005: 2006: 2007a & 2007b).

No transitional types of pottery were recovered from the archaeological deposits at

Buckton Castle. ‘Transitional’ ceramics represent a fore-runner to the later dark-

glazed ware tradition and are recognisable by their often hard, reduced grey semi-

vitrified fabrics. These ceramics appear to bridge a chronological gap between the

ceramic repertoires of the late medieval period and the post-medieval tradition of

Cistercian type wares. The absence of these types at Buckton could suggest either

one of two things; the assemblage was too small to indicate the presence of later

types (i.e. the area sampled was confined to a single phased event) or more likely is

the suggestion that the monument was not in use during the late 14th and early 15th

centuries, perhaps having fallen out of use before this time. Documentary evidence

would seem to support this, suggesting that the castle had been abandoned and left


derelict by 1360 (Grimsditch et al 2007, 7).

In the late medieval period oxidised sandy or gritty textured fabrics dominate early

ceramic groups from the Greater Manchester region. The appearance of purple-

grey rough textured heavy vessels from the 15th century marks a shift away from

the medieval repertoire and an emphasis on largely undecorated and unglazed

durable ceramics used for a variety of purposes. Kiln technology underwent radical

changes during this period and the most noticeable difference is in the colour

change evident in the fabrics.

Many of these types are difficult to date with any degree of accuracy in the absence

of a regional ceramic type sequence and well-stratified archaeological deposits. As

a result, comparison with more broad ranging groups from central Manchester,

such as Chapel Wharf, which provides a continuum of ceramic evidence (13th to

16th centuries) would provide a basis for comparison of fabric types especially

when viewed against assemblages from historically attested moated hall sites such

as Ordsall (Garratt 2007a), Moston (Garratt 2006) Denton and Dukinfield (Nevell

and Walker 2002).

Provenance

The medieval pottery from Buckton is datable to the late 11th to 13th centuries and

is dominated by locally produced Gritty wares. These vessels form part of a

widespread tradition which was dominant throughout the north of England during

the 12th and early 13th centuries (McCarthy and Brooks 1988, 142). General

evidence from assemblages recovered from well-stratified sequences further to the

west of the region (OAN 2006) suggest that these were replaced by the Partially-

Reduced Grey wares during the later 13th and 14th centuries, fragmentary evidence

for which was recovered from central Manchester (Bell et al 2007; Gregory 2007).

Comparative material

It has been noted elsewhere that late medieval pottery from the Salford and

Manchester area is discreetly yet noticeably different to contemporary traditions in

south-west Lancashire and Merseyside (Speakman 2003a & 2003b). There is a

higher incidence of quartz in the fabrics in the east of the region, possibly as a

result of naturally occurring phenomenon in the boulder clays rather than as an

additional tempering agent. This would account for the absence of gritty Partially-

Reduced Grey wares in assemblages nearer to Wigan, were the absence of these

later wares suggests that the pottery market in Wigan did not subscribe to the

broader Reduced Grey ware tradition (OAN 2006).

However, excavations on the Weind (Jones 1985) and at Hallgate (GMAU 1991)

have documented the presence of Gritty wares and it is possible that the pottery

supply for the Salford and Manchester markets was a melting pot for several

regional traditions. Pottery from the Greengate and Ordsall Hall areas of Salford

do represent vessels of the Gritty ware tradition, although this is more usually in

oxidised fabrics, like those from Buckton. However, the assemblages also contain

evidence for imported wares from outside the region, such as sandy-bodied wares

from West Yorkshire, white-bodied wares, possibly from Cheshire and foreign

products from continental markets.

Much of the medieval ceramic material from the north of the region remains local

in appearance sharing more affinities with fabric traditions of West Yorkshire and

Lancashire rather than those of Cheshire, perhaps reflecting a boundary along the


length of the Mersey River basin, with more unusual products making their way

infrequently across the Pennines, north and south of the border. Certainly the

presence of these Gritty wares at the Mellor site would suggest the existence of

several Trans-Pennine routes by which these rural hinterland sites were accessing

pottery vessels from West Yorkshire and beyond.

The Gritty wares and Reduced Grey ware traditions were sub-categories of a more

widespread later ceramic phenomenon known as the ‘Reduced Greenware’

tradition of the 15th and 16th centuries, products from which dominate ceramic

assemblages across northern England, into Lancashire. As the presence of these

later types has not been identified within the small Buckton assemblage, it would

suggest that occupation of the site ceased before this hiatus.

Potential

The scarcity of medieval pottery assemblages from well-stratified sequences in the

North West has been emphasised in current research (McCarthy and Brooks 1992),

in regional research frameworks (Brennand 2007a & 2007b) and by national

research documents (Mellor 1994), although several large excavations have

recently recovered sizeable groups of medieval pottery in the Greengate area of

Salford (Noble et al 2005: OAN 2006). However, evidence from deposits

associated with dated buildings and events remains scarce. The publication of

assemblages from previous excavations at medieval moated hall sites, such as

Ordsall, Salford (Thompson et al 2006: Bell et al 2007), and Denton and

Dukinfield in Tameside (Nevell & Walker 2002) would shed more light on the

range of medieval and early post-medieval types of fabrics, glazes and forms

available in the immediate locality.

Excavations in the medieval centre of Manchester at Hanging Bridge and Hanging

Ditch (UMAU 1999) also produced medieval ceramic assemblages dating to the

12th to 14th century. These unique survivals of unpublished archive material could

form the basis of a ceramic type sequence for the Greater Manchester area, leading

research away from its previous preoccupation with castle and abbey sites (Davey

1977, 7) in favour of the ceramics used by medieval communities in the

burgeoning urban centres of the north-west during the 12th and 13th century.

Although the two vessels recovered from the excavations at Buckton Castle

represent products from kilns possibly operating within a 20 mile radius of the site,

further analysis of the fabric, decorative treatment and form of the fragments would

greatly expand our knowledge of the early trade and exchange of ceramics in the

medieval period between sites in the rural hinterland and market centres such as

Manchester and Salford. Through this analysis it would be possible to establish a

correlation between sites of differing statuses set against a historical narrative and

identify potential trade routes of import and exchange into the region on the north-

east frontier.

6.2.2 Post-Medieval Pottery (SF 3 - 13)

Quantification

In total 24 fragments of post-medieval pottery representing a minimum of 10

individual vessels were recovered during the 2008 phases of archaeological

excavation at Buckton Castle. The quantities produced from each context are

detailed in Appendix 4: Table 4.1. The unstratified material however was not

included in the assessment, as much of the later post-medieval pottery was


recovered during the stripping of the peaty topsoil (001) and subsoil (002) and was

not included in the main catalogue, but visually scanned for diagnostic or unusual

forms.

The majority of pottery from this category was datable to the late 18th and late 19th

centuries with very few sherds of potentially early eighteenth-century date.

Several deposits were contaminated by ceramic material from later phases of

intrusive ‘ad-hock’ excavation during the eighteenth-century (context (159); Slot

H, F and J) suggesting some disturbance has occurred through contemporary

activity, for example a single fragment of clay tobacco pipe was recovered from

this deposit and was datable to the late eighteenth or early nineteenth-century,

Appendix 4: Table 4.5. In these cases, the potential for later intrusion increases and

these deposits are less useful in establishing the stratigraphic sequence based on

ceramic evidence. However, the underlying deposits beneath the build-up of topsoil

and subsoil appeared to be intact where robber trenches had not disturbed discreet

areas of the monument.

The group of post-medieval ceramics is relatively small and appears to fall within a

relatively short date range, indicative of a brief period of localised intrusive

activity, perhaps a single event rather than suggestive incursions into the

archaeological deposits of the monument.

Condition

The assemblage was generally in good condition, but highly fragmentary with

many joining sherds. Several cross-context joins have been noted (Appendix 4:

Table 4.1), but these were recovered from interface contexts with the topsoil and

robber trenches and as a result probably represent a spread of activity associated

with the backfilling of these intrusive trenches.

Range of material

The post-medieval ceramic assemblage was restricted in range and variety of types.

The later wares are typical of Victorian domestic and utilitarian ceramics.

Undecorated, highly vitrified whiteware fragments from plates and hollow forms

and late nineteenth-century annular wares were recovered alongside early to mid-

nineteenth-century thin-walled brown stoneware tankard fragments. Several pieces

from the same vessel (SF5, 8 & 9) were found spread across a large area of the

inner gatehouse [157] on the eastern side of the entrance in Trench 3, context (159).

These pieces were localised and appeared to have been smashed in one event,

highlighting the intrusion that had occurred previously in this area.

A single rim fragment of unglazed white-firing pottery with an external scalloped

press-moulded decoration was unusual within the assemblage. It has been dated to

the nineteenth century on the basis of the fine fabric and thin-walled form of the

vessel.

Potential

There is little potential for further analysis of the post-medieval pottery. Its main

use is in the identification of intrusive activity contaminating the archaeological

deposits associated with the earthworks. The identification of the post-medieval

ceramics could more accurately contribute to the dating of features and

archaeological deposits on site, and should help to refine the phasing however, no


recommendations for further work are suggested.

6.3 Ferrous and Non-Ferrous Metalwork and Industrial Residues (SF 14 - 25)

(Figs. 81, 83 - 85)

Quantification

A relatively sizeable group of ferrous artefacts was recovered during the

archaeological excavations at Buckton Castle, 2008. A total of 13 individual metal

finds were identified (including non-ferrous material), weighing 24g. These were

largely recovered from Trench 3 and associated with the archaeological deposits

around the gateway [171]; the metalled surfaces (170), (173) and (174) and clay

layer (184/185), see Appendix 4: Table 4.2.

Condition

The metalwork assemblage as a whole was fragmentary and heavily corroded

through oxidation. The ferrous finds from the interface between the clay

(184)/(185) and metalled surface deposits (173) associated with the entrance were

particularly degraded, clearly having suffered deterioration as a result of the acidic

conditions produced by the peat and water-retention properties of the clay surface.

Consequently the original profile or diagnostic shape of these items was difficult to

discern, however, it is clear that many of the artefacts represent nails with square

shanks, suggesting that they were early handmade types.

Range and Variety

The ferrous artefacts appear to have a relatively uniform size, being no more than

4cm in length when complete. Although many have suffered severe surface

degradation, several complete items were identified as nails. The more diagnostic

examples were recovered from largely unstratified deposits but do appear to be

medieval in date but have been subsequently disturbed from their primary context.

Many of the ferrous items were found in a localised deposit associated with the

possible demolition or collapse of structures around the entrance or gateway,

context (185). The nails appear to be relatively small and appear to have functioned

as carpentry or joinery tacks rather than structural rivets, with the exception of one

fragment in group SF 25. The lack of heavy-duty ironwork associated with wooden

structures on site is an anomaly as yet.

Several pieces of industrial residue were recovered alongside the ferrous

metalwork. These items could have been originally incorporated as part of the

metalled surface of the gateway/entrance but would also seem to imply at least

some secondary melting of metal ore was taking place in or around the monument.

Indeed, the construction of the defences would have necessitated some semi-

permanent industrial activities/processes to have been carried out in close

proximity to the building work.

The topsoil/subsoil interface also produced some industrial residues suggestive or

copper smelting or bronze working (SF 55). Because of the unstratified context of

this material it is impossible to date it with any accuracy but the possibility of

industrial processes associated with either the construction of the castle or the

occupation of the monument thereafter would be highly likely. Fragments of

industrial residue associated with the secondary smelting of iron waste were also

recovered alongside the iron nail fragments. SF 23 was a piece of clinker-fused

industrial residue associated with the medieval pottery in Trench 3, giving a


relative date for this type of industrial process on site.

A single scrap of lead was excavated from the topsoil/subsoil interface which could

have originally been used as flashing on the guttering of secondary structures

within the castle or could be a piece of lead waste which would have been re-

smelted.

Potential

The confined but select group of ferrous metalwork recovered from Trench 3

would suggest that evidence of iron-working and other associated industrial

processes were occurring on site. The frequency of the material clustered in a

discreet area of the site is explained by the presence and nature of the metalled

surface in this area. However the high incidence of nails which appear to be related

to carpentry rather than structural fittings and fixtures is unusual and suggests an

inconsistency in the artefactual evidence. The lack of any large structural timbers

or woodwork is also unusual but perhaps the radiocarbon dating evidence will

answer this irregularity.

6.4 Building Material (SF 26 - 39) (Fig. 87)

Quantification

A total of 1.257kg of building materials were recovered form the archaeological

deposits associated with the structural remains at Buckton Castle, 2008, Appendix

4: Table 4.3.

Evidence for the use of building materials associated with the pointing, rendering

and mortaring of the stone walls was scare. Only a number of deposits and in situ

structural remains had any suggestion of residual lime-based mortar still evident as

much of this material had degraded in the extreme environmental conditions and

acidic soils. As a result, this material was only sampled in discreet areas where it

survived in situ.

Condition

The assemblage of building materials recovered from archaeological deposits at

Buckton Castle comprised several types of building material, all of which have

been identified as medieval in date.

Discreet pockets and clusters of lime-based mortar were recovered from the

deposits associated with the metalled and clay surfaces around the entrance. These

pockets appeared to relate to dispersal patterns of material after a collapse event, as

a result of natural slumpage or active demolition is uncertain.

All the building materials were highly fragmentary and degraded, being largely

comprised of soft, sandy-bodied oxidised material.

Range and Variety

Concreted mortar (SF 32 and 33) was excavated in the topsoil/subsoil interface in

deposits around the entrance in Trench 3. These angular fragments could represent

pointing which would have been adhered to the outer surface of the stone walls.

These were the only diagnostic fragments in terms of form and shape that were

recovered. The remainder of the lime mortar samples were powdery and as a result


were bulk sampled. Some of the fragmentary pieces in group SF 39 had inclusions

of burnt shale and oxidised CBM (ceramic building material).

Random fragments of laminated natural red sandstone were found (SF 27 and 29)

but these small scraps were undiagnostic although SF 29 showed some signs of

scorching and a piece of burnt shale (SF 35) was recovered from the entrance

deposits. It appears that these materials could have been used as additional

tempering agents in the mortar mix.

A single piece of abraded and fragmentary oxidised CBM was excavated from the

interface between the clay and metalled surfaces in Trench 3. The sandy-bodied

fabric and the profile of the fragment is too coarse for a ceramic vessel and is

reminiscent of Romano-British CBM fabrics. It is possible that this piece may

represent evidence of the use of fired clay as structural building material for clay

floor surfaces or roofing material.

6.5 Organics (SF 40 - 46) (Figs. 82 & 86)

Quantification

A small assemblage of organic material was recovered from the excavations at

Buckton, 2008. Table 4.4 in Appendix 4 details the range and variety of organic

materials.

Condition

A total of 13 fragmentary pieces of organic material, weighing 24g comprised the

total stratified organic assemblage from Buckton Castle. Much of the organic

assemblage comprised butchered fragments of animal bone (Fig. 86) recovered

alongside areas of discreet burning and demolition activity associated with the

medieval archaeological deposits in the central area of the entrance in Trench 3.

Although highly fragmentary and small in number, the organic finds suggest

evidence for human occupation, albeit brief, during the 11th and 12

th centuries.

Although the security of the context remains questionable, no post-medieval

pottery was recovered alongside these organic finds which suggests that the

deposits associated with the clay and metalled surfaces around the original north

entrance have not been contaminated by later nineteenth-century robber trench

activity.

Two scraps of leather were also recovered during the excavations (Fig. 82); one

off-cut (SF 46) was recovered from Trench 1 in the lower fill of ditch [201]. This

undiagnostic scrap was found at a relatively deep depth in the lower ditch,

however, the rubble matrix of the fill appears to have allowed filtration and

contamination of underlying deposits and fragments of nineteenth-century glass

and brick from the mid twentieth-century ‘starfish’ anti-aircraft structure were

found amongst the rubble debris, questioning the reliability of this context and

indeed the security of the date for the leather off-cut.

Range and Variety

The small organic assemblage comprised mostly animal bones which showed clear

signs of butchery, filleting and skinning. Rib and long bones from small

domesticated species such as lamb and sheep, bird (possibly chicken) dominated

the assemblage and some showed signs of marrow extraction. Some of the

fragments had suffered from post-depositional discolouration from their association


with burnt or charcoal-rich deposits in context (173/174) and clay (184/185)

associated with entrance in Trench 3.

It seems likely that these artefacts are medieval in date through their association

with the medieval ceramics and charcoal-rich deposits around the entrance. The

radiocarbon dates provided by the sampling of the heavy charcoal deposits should

provide some relative and absolute dates by which to date the associated material.

Nevertheless, the small collection of organic material looks like occupation debris

and clear evidence for human action on the bone is unquestionable. Comparative

material has been recovered from medieval contexts at Greengate, Salford (Noble

et al 2005) where two cess-pit features and their associated midden material

provided organic artefacts such as remnant bone and a leather archers’ brace.

6.6 Clay Tobacco Pipes (SF 47 - 49)

Quantification

A small assemblage of clay tobacco pipes was recovered during the archaeological

excavation at Buckton Castle, 2008. A total of 15 fragmentary pieces were

recovered from the topsoil/subsoil interface and a single stem fragment (SF 47)

was recovered from Slot H excavated through a disturbed deposit (159) associated

with a robber trench [153] cut into the deposits associated with wall (152) of the

gatehouse structure.

All pipe fragments were datable to the mid- to late nineteenth-century, and were

largely undiagnostic, with no maker’s stamps or decorative treatment evident. The

assemblage comprised 15 fragmentary stem fragments and a highly fragmentary

plain bowl, see Appendix 4: Table 4.5.

Condition

The assemblage was highly fragmentary with few diagnostic examples. All stems

were sub-circular in section, with no obvious oval sections. There was some

suggestion of facetting on two of the stem fragments in group SF48 but the bore

diameters all ranged between 0.07 – 0.09 of an inch with the exception of SF47

which measured 0.1 inches

Range and Variety

The range and variety of the small fragmentary assemblage is difficult to estimate

due to the largely undiagnostic nature of the pieces and the unstratified contexts in

which they were recovered. Their association with nineteenth-century ceramics

suggests that these pipes were deposited contemporaneously with the robber trench

activity which sealed the pottery.

No recommendations for further analysis are required.

6.7 Glass (SF 50 - 53)

Quantification

A total of 8 fragments of glass were recovered from contexts associated with the

topsoil in Trench 3. These represented a total of 7 individual vessels, weighing

111g. Full details are given in Appendix 4: Table 4.6.


Condition

The small assemblage of glass was highly fragmentary and predominantly

nineteenth-century in date. The security of the archaeological deposits is

questionable and this material appears to be contemporaneous with the late

nineteenth-century clay pipe and ceramic evidence.

Range and Variety

The small assemblage was dominated by late nineteenth-century dark green bottle

glass, one fragment bearing the patented trademark emblem of the manufacturer

bottling carbonated water (SF 51). A glass marble (SF 52) suggests that the site

was also a popular place for day trip and excursions during the late nineteenth-

century, as the glass, clay pipe and post-medieval pottery evidence would suggest,

with the discarded rubbish strewn about the site in the topsoil deposits.

The assemblage does not warrant further analysis.

6.8 Summary and Conclusion

The programme of archaeological investigation undertaken as part of the

excavation of Buckton Castle, Tameside produced a small assemblage of pottery

and additional material spanning a date range from the 11th to the 19

th century. The

majority of the assemblage was post-medieval in date however the crucial dating

evidence was provided by ceramic evidence obtained from sealed deposits

associated with the north entrance and provided dates for the construction of

surfaces in that area during the 11th to 13th century. The focus of the analysis of the

assemblage was therefore confined to the area of the site which produced sealed

and stratified groups of material, contemporaneous with the construction and

subsequent occupation of the monument.

The presence of immediate post-Conquest pottery types at Buckton Castle has

important implications for not only the phasing of the monument but also for the

trade and exchange of inter-regional pottery types during this early period.

Pottery, once fired is easily broken but is also highly resistant to decay when

disposed of in the ground. For this reason, it is one of the most abundant artefacts

recovered from archaeological sites, and indeed most archaeological deposits. It is

therefore a crucial resource for interpreting the date and cultural affinities of any

archaeological site. Pottery has an immediate function as a diagnostic and dating

agent and as such reflects contemporary technological, cultural and economic

conditions and their development. Consequently, the aim of this ceramic report has

been to firstly identify and classify the material according to ware-type, fabric,

form and function. This set of data was then applied to the social circumstances by

which pottery was used and disposed of at Buckton Castle.

Because the interpretation of the ceramic assemblage relies on valid chronological

sequences, preferably tied to absolute dates, the relative lack of sealed and

stratigraphically sound deposits at Buckton made the sequencing of material

problematic. Reliable sequences have therefore been cross-referenced with other

sites producing comparable contemporary ceramic assemblages within the locality.

No direct evidence for dating the medieval pottery exists (in lieu of the results from

the radiocarbon samples) as most vessels do not bear maker’s stamps or datable

inscriptions. Therefore, through the study of stratified material from well-recorded


excavations and by association with other groups of artefacts from other excavated

sites within the region (after Hurst 1977, 62-3), the Buckton assemblage has been

identified and interpreted as closely as possible. In this way the assemblage, along

with cumulative evidence form a large number of excavated sites, has the potential

to contribute to the generation of a regional ceramic sequence and relative

chronologies in an area that has been previously under-represented and somewhat

misrepresented archaeologically.

Interpretation of the ceramic evidence from any site is limited in that we do not

know its precise importance in the contemporary household by comparison with

vessels made in alternative materials which served a similar function, such as

wood, horn and metal. Pottery recovered from sealed groups, such as the late

medieval vessels (SF 1 and 2), is useful in that it has remained in situ, relatively

undisturbed since its deposition. These groups can be closely dated and cover a

relatively short period of time. The surviving fragments are evidence of

contemporary living conditions and can demonstrate the function and use of space

within the site. There may also be a visible difference in the type of pottery used by

seigniorial and ‘peasant’ occupants within the monument, evident in the types of

vessel, the quality of the glazes and decoration on these items.

The ceramic assemblage can also inform about contemporary fashions in cooking

and eating, and the availability of specific parts of the ceramic kit used for

domestic or quasi-domestic/proto-industrial activity. Decoration may also illustrate

current ideas, beliefs and fashions. However, further study of the provenance and

aesthetics of vessel production and decorative technique is required.

6.9 The Wider Setting

Until recently, the North-West, has been viewed as ‘poor and backward’ in the

medieval period (after Edwards 1975, 108 in Davey 1977). However, recent studies

and excavations have shown that to a greater or lesser degree, a sufficient populous

existed to generate a considerable body of evidence (Edwards 1975, 108).

However, the archaeological and ceramic evidence remains scant compared to

other regions of the United Kingdom. Recent discoveries through archaeological

excavation and field-walking have shown that it is not so much a lack of physical

evidence but a lack of excavation in the area which has biased the evidence for

medieval ceramics in the North-West.

By the end of the 11th century Britain was more or less closely settled and most of

the population, especially those occupying the lowland zones, were regularly using

pottery. These ceramic containers may have been cheaply produced and not highly

regarded (Blake and Davey 1983, 6).

The adjoining region of south-west Lancashire has been accorded more attention in

terms of medieval ceramic research and excavations suggest that the area was

probably aceramic before turn of the 13th century (Speakman 2003a and 2003b).

Evidence alludes to the late development of urban market economies in the region,

combined with the paucity of evidence for the types of ceramic being produced it

has been suggested that pottery manufacture was not widespread until the 13th or

14th century, suggesting late development of regional types in the North-West

(Davey 1991, 124-127: Barker & Harris 1993, 129). Based on the available

evidence, the same conclusions could be drawn for the area of what is now Greater

Manchester and its environs.

The only published evidence for medieval pottery manufacture between the Ribble


and Mersey are wasters recovered from excavations at Prescot (Freke 1989, 15-16).

Analysis of ceramic assemblages from this early period suggests a locally

sustainable medieval potting economy was in existence, producing basic

earthenware vessels at least, supplying local demand and not travelling any great

distance (McCarthy & Brooks 1988, 89). This pattern is reflected in the lack of

comparable material excavated South and West of the Mersey, North of the Ribble

and South of the River Dee, supporting the idea of relatively isolated pockets of

late medieval ceramic production within local communities and groups on a

subsidiary level (Davey 1991, 124). However, the adoption of pottery quite often

reflects other changes taking place in society (McCarthy & Brooks 1988, 70) and

its inception in the North-West can certainly be seen as a turning point within the

region.

Evidence from recent excavations in central Manchester, where pristine pockets of

late medieval ploughsoil have yielded evidence of early occupation in the area,

have produced small, fragmentary and highly abraded medieval ceramic

assemblages. The medieval ceramics fall into two main categories; the oxidised

sandy-bodied wares and the coarser gritty wares (which appear in either oxidised or

reduced fabrics). These contexts are generally spreads of material associated with

15th century ploughsoil and as a result these sherds are not often in their primary

context. The medieval market centre in Salford (Noble et al 2005) provided two

sealed groups of medieval ceramic material which included both ceramic ware-

types. These were ascribed a late 12th to 14

th century date, but inter-regional

‘imported’ products from Norton Priory were also found amongst the more local

types suggesting that by the 12th century at least, there was a real market for pottery

vessels.

Contemporary traditions in the neighbouring counties of Yorkshire and Cheshire

fall into two broad categories – Gritty wares and Sandy wares – both of which

appear alongside local variants and ware types in Manchester. Recent excavations

of a pottery production site at Salmesbury, Preston (Bradley & Miller, forthcoming)

have identified a kiln where both gritty wares and finer sandy wares were being

produced in the same period and that in some cases similar vessels were produced

in both types of fabric. No kiln sites have been identified as yet within the central

Manchester area, although excavations at Ordsall Hall (Higham 1980a/b) produced

evidence for a kiln operating within close proximity, but the assemblage has yet to

be the subject of a comprehensive report.

Pennine Gritty wares been have excavated in archaeological deposits across

Manchester and clearly the Buckton site would be well placed to receive these

products as part of a Trans-Pennine trade, comparable with the recent discovery of

a contemporary medieval hall site in a similar geographical upland zone at Mellor.

Recommendations and Archaeological Potential

The 2008 season of excavation has produced the first stratified and sealed

assemblage of material which forms part of this preliminary interim report viewed

as a post-excavation assessment. In lieu of any assemblage from previous

archaeological investigations at the site, this small and fragmentary collection of

material must form the basis of a comparative analysis of the material culture

associated with the site and serve to place it in its wider context.

The range and variety of material is not a large enough sample to form conclusive

statements about the nature of the occupation at the site however, the assemblage

does reflect the history of the castle and the early inhabitants of the monument.


Variation in the quantity and range of the assemblage may be apparent after

subsequent archaeological excavations have taken place, which may reflect the

different areas of the site under investigation and the varying location of the

settlement on the hilltop over time.

The production of this primary assessment report is a useful means of maintaining

an overview of the range of material from the site as a whole, however if

successive excavations yield further artefacts it would be useful to consider a full

analysis of the ceramic assemblage, looking at groups by period and phase in order

to get a better overview of the character of the activity on the site as a whole, at

different times in its history. This would also improve the phasing of the

archaeological deposits and structures on site, particularly if cross-context joins

could be identified. Clearly this work relies on an increase in the frequency of

securely contexted material recovered during further excavation work at the site but

would mean that an assessment of the material was not solely restricted to a

chronological or typological analysis alone.


7. Conclusion

7.1 Interpreting the Castle Remains

Until the investigations in 2007 Buckton Castle was thought to be a Ringwork type

11E as described in the Monument Class Description, devised by English Heritage.

This classification describes a type 11E ringwork castle as being oval in form with

a partial ring of defences and an artificially raised interior.

Although the embankment appears to be continuous (recent excavations

demonstrating that the outer part of this embankment was probably formed by a

masonry curtain wall), it appears that the ditch is incomplete on the northern part of

the western defences. This interruption may be due, as has been suggested in the

past, to this part of the ditch having been deliberately in-filled in modern times.

However, it is at least equally if not more probable that the ditch was originally

constructed with a break at this point taking advantage of the very steep slope at the

end of the promontory (Fig. 26). Further evidence to suggest that Buckton was a

type 11E ringwork castle was supported by the presence of a ubiquitous layer of

hard packed reconstituted yellow sandstone, between c. 1.10m and 1.35m in depth,

visible in all three trenches during the 2007 phase of investigation (contexts: (022)

in Trench 1, (005) in Trench 2 and (012) in Trench 3) and further identified in

trenches open during the latest phase of works in 2008 (contexts (211/212) in

Trench 1, layers (101) to (104) in Trench 2 and (155/156) in Trench 3). These

similar layers have been interpreted as an artificial raising and levelling layer

excavated from the original cutting of the defensive ditch around the earthwork at

the time of the castle’s original construction.

Why a ringwork and not a motte and bailey? It has been generally accepted that

both types of castle were contemporary (Hill & Wileman 2002, 87). It can be

assumed that their period of construction would have been similar, however

ringworks have two main periods; the first being immediately post-Conquest with

the second being during the period of unsettlement during the civil wars between

Stephen and Matilda, around 1138-1153 AD. The reasons why the two types were

being constructed at the same time are many and varied. These include the personal

preference of the local overlord, perhaps in imitation of a successful local example

in areas where there was a concentration of that type of castle. Ringworks were

quicker and easier to construct and therefore may have been primarily a

construction suitable for campaign purposes (Hill & Wileman 2002, 88) and

several developed into motte and bailey types at a later stage. Ringworks were on

occasion built using previous fortified sites such as Castle Neroche in Somerset.

Initially a ringwork, Castle Neroche was built on an earlier Iron Age hillfort which

was later developed into a motte and bailey.

There may also have been geographical and geological reasons for choosing the

type. Buckton lies on the edge of a promontory along the edge of moor land and

has a very thin layer of overlying topsoil. The building of a motte would require

extensive amounts of soil-like material and thus it may have been expediency that

dictated the building of a ringwork at Buckton. However, if the interpretation of the

interior as having been artificially raised around one metre through the use of

reconstituted sandstone material, up-cast from the excavation of the ditch is correct,

then the builders did not seem adverse to moving great amounts of material on to

the site.

This all supposes that the castle had an initial earthen bank stage. However, the


four trenches excavated along the curtain wall (Trenches 1/07 & 3/07 and Trenches

2/08 & 3/08) suggest that the massive ashlar-faced curtain wall may have been the

initial phase and thus the castle was originally and primarily built of stone. This in

itself could negate an interpretation of the site being a ringwork and, taken

alongside the evidence from recent excavations to suggest that there was no outer

bailey on the eastern side of the monument (Roberts et al 2006), would indicate

that although the taphonomy of the site suggests that it conforms to the general

criteria for a ringwork monument, Buckton Castle should be reclassified as a

different type of monument.

The construction of the castle on Buckton Hill may at first seem curious but they

are known from their distributions to have been constructed in four different types

of locale. Some are known at the intersection of Romano-British roads, some

commanding a river crossing or ford. Other examples with closer affinities to the

Buckton site were positioned overlooking a town or village or more importantly,

commanding a pass or transit route. The siting of Buckton Castle allows/provides

commanding views along the Tame Valley to the immediate north and south, with

Buckton valley extending eastwards. Further afield there are extensive views of

Manchester to the north-west and across the Cheshire plains as far as the Beeston

Castle area on a clear day. Further reasons for its location may be dependent upon

the specific date of its construction.

As with previous investigations there was a paucity of datable artefactual evidence

from well-stratified (sealed) archaeological deposits on site. However, an exception

to this rule was presented by a seemingly uncontaminated deposit associated with

the uppermost metalled surface (170) in the north entrance [171]. Ceramic evidence

and possible occupation debris, including charcoal and bone were recovered from

context (185), found below overlying demolition deposits associated with the

collapse of the structural remains of the entrance. It is possible that this isolated

group of material, comprising two ceramic vessels datable to the late 12th century,

were deposited during the final phases, prior to the active decommissioning or

passive abandonment of the monument.

There is an interpretation that the castle at Buckton was short-lived. The evidence

for this is the lack so far, of any architectural stone work uncovered during the

excavations in 2007 and 2008, suggesting the castle was never finished, at least to a

high standard with the typical architectural dressed features. Also only minimal

quantities of contemporary medieval evidence in the form of pottery or other

artefacts have been unearthed. Given such a lack of artefactual/occupation material

and pending the results of soil sample analysis; conclusions have been drawn

largely from stratigraphic and architectural evidence.

The form of Buckton Castle, as identified from the archaeological investigations of

2007 and 2008, suggests that it took the form of a stone ringwork with a multi-

storey, stone gate tower and an adjacent building abutting the curtain wall; for

comparable entrance morphology, see Richmond Castle in North Yorkshire (Fig.

76). This example illustrates how a later, 12th century keep was built over the

entrance, utilising and incorporating the original gateway. The rounded arch of the

original entrance is still visible and the square tower housing a basement, garrison,

hall and chamber on the successive floors could be comparable with the Buckton

example, albeit on a less grand scale.

Whilst there are a large number of known ringwork castles in England and Wales,

direct parallels for the specific type/form evident at the Buckton Castle site are few.

The second phase ringwork at Laugharne Castle, Carmarthenshire dating to the late


12th - early 13th century, had a large rectangular hall block adjacent to a simple

stone gateway in the curtain wall. Stone tower gateways are well documented, such

as the 1100 – 1150AD phase at Carew Castle, Pembrokeshire, although this had a

timber palisade and earthen rampart rather than the stone curtain wall evident at

Buckton. The pairing of a stone tower gateway and an abutting stone building can

be seen at a number of sites, including the 13th century phase at Stokesay Castle,

Shropshire. However this stone gateway was rebuilt in timber during the 17th

century. One parallel to the plan form at Buckton may have been the 12th century

phase at Cilgerran Castle, Pembrokeshire, where there is some evidence to suggest

a stone ringwork with a tower gateway.

7.2 Recommendations

As a result of the 2007 and 2008 seasons, significant questions remain about the

form and phasing of the castle. It is evident that a final season of archaeological

investigation of the in situ remains would be beneficial, in order to answer or at

least further illucidate some of the outstanding questions from the 2007 and 2008

seasons of work. It is therefore proposed that four trenches be excavated as part of

the third and final season, focussing on the form and extent of the defences around

the northern gateway and across the southern later entrance. A further trench in the

interior would continue to look for internal structures identified in the 19th century.

Trench 1: - Excavation of a trench 10x3m running c. east/west across perceived

outworks to the north west of the entrance. This trench is located to ascertain the

nature of this earthwork and to establish whether or not a masonry structure existed

as shown on the 16th century Stavely plan.

Trench 2: - Excavation of a trench 5x3m running c. north/south across the pathway

leading from the outworks (as trench 1). This trench is located to ascertain whether

there was a connection between the outworks and the entrance to the castle.

Trench 3: - Excavation of an ‘L’ shaped trench orientated c. north/south along the

causeway c. 15x4m with a perpendicular offshoot 10x4m orientated east/west

down the slope of the north western side of the causeway embankment to the

bottom of the ditch at that point. This trench would incorporate the northern

extremities of the Trench 1 excavated in 2008 and is designed to ascertain the

nature of the causeway leading to the entrance and to ascertain the existence of any

outer defence works beyond the gateway.

Trench 4 – Excavation of a trench 10x5m running c. north/south in the south

western corner of the castle. This trench would be located perpendicular to Trench

2 excavated in 2008 (which failed to locate perceived structure seen on the

Saddleworth Geological Society plan of the 1840’s) to make further investigations

to locate any structures in this area of the castle.

Trench 5 – This trench would be across the later 19th century inserted ‘entrance’ in

the south western corner of the castle. This entrance was created sometime in the

latter half of the 19th century and appears not to be an original feature. The purpose

of this trench would be to obtain a full profile of the embankment whilst causing

minimal damage to the monument and would entail cleaning and creating a vertical

section of one side of this ‘entrance’.

Geophysical Survey – It is proposed to conduct a small scale geophysical survey in

the immediate area beyond the northern ditch in a further attempt to locate any


communication route to the castle’s entrance. It is appreciated that this is not the

ideal location for either a resistivity or magnetometry survey due to the vegetation

coverage and underlying geology. However, a small trial survey could be

conducted to ascertain its suitability and if deemed worthwhile a further larger

scale survey could be conducted in the future in the land beyond the castle’s

precincts to locate and ascertain the direction of any communication route to the

castle.

Due to the amount of metal artefacts recovered during the 2008 excavations it is

proposed to conduct a metal detector survey of the spoil heaps and excavated

trenches. This would be under strict archaeological supervision using responsible

and archaeologically experienced metal detectorist known to the site supervisors.

These proposals are relatively ambitious taking into account the variable weather

conditions that can be encountered at the monument and it is appreciated that time

on site may be lost due to this factor. Should this occur then it is possible that

excavation of certain of these trenches may not be possible. They would therefore

be opened in numerical order with certain trenches not excavated if it was thought

that they could not be completed satisfactorily within the time period designated.


8. Sources

Aikin J, 1795 A Description of the Country Thirty to Forty Miles round Manchester.

London.

Andrew S, 1892 'Bucton', Transactions of the Lancashire and Cheshire Antiquarian

Society 10, 44-66.

Andrew S, 1895 'Bucton Castle', Transactions of the Lancashire and Cheshire Antiquarian

Society 13, 164-7.

Andrew W J, 1903 `Buried Treasure: some traditions, records and facts', Journal of the

British Archaeological Association, New Series 9, 8-32.

Barker T C, and Harris J R, 1993 A Merseyside Town in the Industrial Revolution: St

Helens 1750 – 1900 (3rd Impression) Frank Cass, London.

Barraclough G, (ed.) 1988, The Charters of the Anglo-Norman Earls of Chester, c.1071-

1237. Record Society of Lancashire and Cheshire vol 126.

Bell S, and Mottershead G, 2007 Ordsall Hall, Salford: Archaeological Excavations.

U.M.A.U. Unpublished Excavation Report 2007.

BH St J O’Neil Peveril Castle Dept of Environment Guidebook 1979, 2 (BH St J O’Neil

and P R White)

Blake H, and Davey P, (eds.) 1983 Guidelines for the Processing and Publication of

Medieval Pottery from Excavations. Directorate of Ancient Monuments and Historic

Buildings. Occ. Paper No. 5. Department of the Environment.

Booth P H W, Harrop J H, and Harrop S A, 1976-7 `Extent of Longdendale', Cheshire

Sheaf, 5th series, 35 no 83, 43 no 98.

Booth K, and Cronin J, 1989 'Buckton Castle: a survey of the evidence', Greater

Manchester Archaeological Journal 3 (for 1987-8), 61-6.

Bowman W, 1960 England in Ashton-under-Lyne. Ashton-under-Lyne Corporation.

Bradley J, and Miller I, (forthcoming) The Post-Roman Pottery (from Archaeological

Excavations on the Samlesbury to Helmshore Gas Pipeline Project) OAN 2007.

Brennand M, with Chitty J, and Nevell M, (eds.) 2007 Research and Archaeology for North

West England: Volume 2, Council for British Archaeology North West

Brennand M, (ed.) 2007a The Archaeology of North West England: An Archaeological

Research Framework for North West England. Vol 1: Resource Assessment Archaeology

North West, vol 8 (Issue 18, for 2006). ALGAO and English Heritage with the Council for

British Archaeology North West.

Brennand M, (ed.) 2007b The Archaeology of North West England: An Archaeological

Research Framework for North West England. Vol 2: Research Agenda and Strategy

Archaeology North West, vol 9 (Issue 19, for 2007). ALGAO and English Heritage with the

Council for British Archaeology North West.


Burke T, and Nevell M, 1996 A History and Archaeology of Tameside: Buildings of

Tameside. Tameside MBC with the University of Manchester Archaeological Unit.

Cathcart King D J, and Alcock L, 1969 'Ringworks of England and Wales', Chateau

Gaillard 3, 90-127.

Cathcart King D J, 1983 Castellarium Anglicanum 2 vols. New York.

Clark R, 1991 Hallgate, Wigan: An Excavation Report. Greater Manchester Archaeological

Unit (GMAU) Unpublished Excavation Report 2001.

Cumberpatch C G, 2007 Medieval and later Pottery from Excavations on the Mellor

Hillfort, In P Noble, R Garratt, and A Thompson, 2007 Excavations at the Old Vicarage,

Mellor, Stockport. UMAU Unpublished Excavation Report.

Davey P J, (ed.) 1977. Medieval Pottery from Excavations in the North-West: Material

from the Chester Conference of November 1975 University of Liverpool Institute of

Extension Studies.

Davey P, 1991 ‘Merseyside: The Post-Roman Pottery’ J Merseyside Archaeol Soc 7 (for

1986-7), 121-42.

Dobinson C S, 1996, Twentieth Century Fortifications in England, Volume III: Bombing

Decoys of WWII, England’s Passive Air Defence 1939-45, CBA

Earwaker J P, 1880 East Cheshire: Past and Present, vo1 2. London.

Edwards B J N, 1975 ‘Medieval Pottery in Lancashire’ in P J Davey, 1977 Medieval

Pottery from Excavations in the North West, University of Liverpool Institute of Extension

Studies, 108.

English Heritage 1991 Management of Archaeological Projects, 2nd

Edition: Appendix 4.

Swindon.

Farrer W, (ed.) 1902 Lancashire Pipe Rolls and Early Charters. Liverpool.

Farrer W, (ed.) 1916 Early Yorkshire Charters, vol 3.

Farrer W, and Brownbill J, (eds.) 1908 Victoria History of the County of Lancaster, vo1 2.

Constable & Co.

Farrer W, and Brownbill J, (eds.) 1911 Victoria History of the County of Lancaster, vo1 5.

Constable & Co.

Freke D, 1989 ‘The Pottery Finds’ in R. Holgate ‘Excavations at Prescot, December 1980

to January 1981 (sites A- E)’ J Merseyside Archaeol Soc 5 (for 1982-3), 11-19.

Garratt R, 2008 ‘The Small Finds’ In G Mottershead, and R Garratt, Chapel Wharf: Phase

2, Clowes Street, Salford; An Archaeological Evaluation and Excavation. UMAU

Unpublished Excavation Report 2008 (29).

Garratt R, 2006 ‘The Pottery’, in R. Gregory Moston Hall Community Archaeological

Excavations 2003 to 2006 (UMAU) Unpublished Excavation Report 2006 (81).

Garratt R, 2005 ‘Appendix 1: The Pottery Report’, in P Noble, and P Arrowsmith, Land at


the Junction of Gravel Lane and Greengate, Salford. UMAU Unpublished Excavation

Report 2005 (33).

Garratt R, 2007a ‘The Assemblage’ in S Bell, and G Mottershead, Ordsall Hall, Salford:

Archaeological Excavations UMAU Unpublished Excavation Report.

Garratt R, 2007b ‘Pottery and Additional Material from Excavations at Plot 106,

Spinningfields’ in R Gregory, 2007 Plot 106, Spinningfields Manchester; An

Archaeological Excavation. UMAU Unpublished Excavation Report (32).

Green J, 1991 ‘Earl Ranulf II and Lancashire’ in The Earldom Of Chester And Its

Charters: A Tribute to Geoffrey Barraclough, Journal of Chester Archaeological Society.

Vol 71, Chester 1991 (pp 97-108)

Gregory R, 2007 Plot 106, Spinningfields Manchester; An Archaeological Excavation

UMAU Unpublished Excavation Report (32).

Grimsditch B, Nevell M, and Redhead N, 2007 Buckton Castle: An Archaeological

Evaluation of a Medieval Castle; An Interim Report. UMAU Unpublished Excavation

Report 2007 (53).

Tindall A S, 1981 Buckton Castle, Mossley Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit

Unpublished Excavation Report.

Higham N J, 1980a Excavations at Ordsall Hall Desmesne Farm 1978 to 1979. The Greater

Manchester Archaeological Group Publications, No.2.

Higham N J, 1980b. ‘Appendix IV. Pottery’ in N J Higham, Excavations at Ordsall Hall

Desmesne Farm 1978 to 19 79, Greater Manchester Archaeological Group Publications,

No.2, 33 – 35.

Higham R, and Barker P, 1992 Timber Castles. B T Batsford Ltd, London.

Hill P, and Wileman J, 2002 Landscapes of War: The Archaeology of Aggression and

Defence, Tempus Publishing, Stroud

HMSO, 1920 The Book of Fees commonly called the Testa de Neuill. Part I. A.D.1198-

1242.

Hurst J G, 1977 ‘Summary’ in P J Davey, (ed.) 1977 Medieval Pottery from Excavations in

the North-West: Material from the Chester Conference of November 1975. University of

Liverpool Institute of Extension Studies, 122-123.

Jones G C, and Price J, 1985 Excavations at The Weind, Wigan 1982-4. Greater

Manchester Archaeol J., 1, 25-37.

Lowry B, 1995 Twentieth-century Defences in Britain: An Introductory Guide. CBA

Practical Handbooks in Archaeology, No 12. Council for British Archaeology, York.

McCarthy M R, & Brooks C M, 1988 Medieval Pottery in Britain AD 900 – 1600.

Leicester.

McCarthy M R, and Brooks C M, 1992 ‘The Establishment of a Medieval Pottery

Sequence in Cumbria, England’ in D Gaimster, and M Redknap, (eds.) Everyday and

Exotic Pottery from Europe c. 650-1900. Oxford.


McNeill T, 1992 Castles B.T. Batsford, London

Mellor M, 1994 Medieval Ceramic Studies in England: A Review for English Heritage.

London.

Mottershead G, and Garratt R, 2008 Chapel Wharf: Phase 2, Clowes Street, Salford; An

Archaeological Evaluation and Excavation. UMAU Unpublished Excavation Report 2008

(29).

Nevell M, 1991 A History and Archaeology of Tameside: Tameside 1066-1700. Tameside

MBC with the Greater Manchester Archaeological Unit.

Nevell M, and Walker J, 2002 Denton and Dukinfield Halls and the Archaeology of the

Gentry and Yeoman House in North West England 1500 to 1700. Vol. 2 in The

Archaeology of Tameside Series. Tameside MBC.

Noble P, and Arrowsmith P, 2005 Land at the Junction of Gravel Lane and Greengate,

Salford, Greater Manchester: An Archaeological Excavation and Desk Based Assessment.

(UMAU) Unpublished Excavation Report (33).

Noble P, Garratt R, and Thompson A, 2007 Excavations at the Old Vicarage, Mellor,

Stockport 2007. UMAU Unpublished Excavation Report 2008.

Ormerod G, (ed.) 1882 The History of the County Palatine and City of Chester, 2nd edition,

enlarged and revised by T Helsby.

Oxford Archaeology North 2006 Grand Arcade, Millgate, Wigan, Greater Manchester:

Post-Excavation Assessment. OAN Unpublished Excavation Report (Report Issue 2006-

07/562).

Oxford Archaeology North 2007 Greengate Towers, Salford: Archaeological Investigation.

Unpublished Excavation Report (Report Issue 2006-07/639).

Platt C, 1978 Medieval England: A Social History and Archaeology from the Conquest to

1600AD, Book Club Associates, London

RCAHM Wales, 1991 An Inventory of the Ancient Monuments in Glamorgan. Volume III

Part la: Medieval Secular Monuments, The Early Castles, From the Norman Conquest to

1217. The Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales.

Roberts J, Wilson P, and Nevell M, 2006 Buckton Castle, Stalybridge, Tameside:

Archaeological Survey and Excavation Work by the University of Manchester

Archaeological Unit 1996 – 2002. UMAU Unpublished Excavation Report.

Slowikowski A, Nenk B, and Pearce J, 2001 Minimum Standards for the Processing,

Recording, Analysis and Publication of Post-Roman Ceramics. Medieval Pottery Research

Group Occasional Paper No. 2, 2001.

Speakman, J 2003b ‘Pottery Report’ in Nevell, M (ed), Excavations at White Carr Lane:

Hale Waste and Water Treatment Works. UMAU Unpublished Excavation Report.

Speakman J, 2003a ‘Type series based upon Moston Hall (MOH03) Finds’ in R Gregory

(et al) Moston Hall Community Archaeological Excavations 2003 to 2006. UMAU

Unpublished Excavation Report 2006 (81).


Spurgeon C J, 'Mottes and castle-ringworks in Wales', in J R Kenyon, and R Avent, (ed.)

Castles in Wales and The Marches. Essays in Honour of D J Cathcart King. Cardiff,

University of Wales Press, 23-49.

Thacker A T, (ed.) 1991 The Earldom Of Chester And Its Charters: A Tribute to Geoffrey

Barraclough Journal of Chester Archaeological Society – Volume 71, Chester 1991

Thompson A, 2006 Community Excavations at Ordsall Hall. UMAU Unpublished

Excavation Report.

Towill S, 1991 Carlisle Philmore & Co. Ltd., Chichester

UMAU, 1996 Buckton Castle; A Medieval Castle in Tameside. UMAU Unpublished

Excavation Report.

UMAU, 1999, Hanging Ditch/Hanging Bridge UMAU Unpublished Excavation Report.

Walker J W, (ed) 1924 Abstract of the Chartularies of the Priory of Monkbretton. The

Yorkshire Archaeological Society Record Series, vo166.

Watson Rev J, 1777 ‘An Account of some hitherto undescribed Remains of Antiquity’,

Archaeologia 5, 87-94.

Yorke T, 2003 English Castles Explained. Part of England’s Living History Series,

Counrtyside Books, Newbury, Berkshire.

Cartographic Sources

1842 Plan of Buckton Castle by Saddleworth Geological Society, by courtesy of Ken Booth

Rev Canon Raines (mid 19th) Cheetham’s Library, Raines Mss ix

Victoria County History for Lanchashire, 1908 (fig 6?)

George Ormerod, 1817

Web-based Sources

http://www.eng-h.gov.uk/mpp/mcd/mcdtop1.htm


9. Acknowledgements

Brian Grimsditch directed the evaluation on behalf of UMAU and was supported by

Stephen Bell, Ruth Garratt, Phil Cooke, Lee Gregory and Graham Mottershead also of

UMAU.

Thanks are due to a number of people who assisted in various capacities during this

archaeological investigation:

1. Derek Pierce, Ron Bragg and Brian Burton of the South Trafford Archaeological

Group (STAG).

2. Steve Milne, Kevin Wright, Dave Barker and other members of Tameside

Archaeological Society (TAS)

3. Andy Coutts of the South Manchester Archaeological Research Trust (SMART).

4. Members of the Glossop and Longdendale Historical Society (Lorraine Gregory).

5. Undergraduate and graduate archaeology students from the University of

Manchester.

6. Kath Morris

7. John Roberts, formerly of UMAU for volunteering his services and expertise

All of the above were heavily involved in the excavation work carried out at the monument.

Norman Redhead (GMAU), County Archaeologist for Greater Manchester, and Dr Michael

Nevell, Director of UMAU, whose advice and assistance before, during, and after the

fieldwork was invaluable. Also for their assistance with interpretation of the evidence

uncovered.

Mr Gordon Dick, manager of the Buckton Vale Quarry, for his support and who granted

permission for the use of the quarry car park, locating of facilities and access to the castle

via the quarry road system.

Enville Estates, the agents for the landowners of the Buckton Castle site, who gave their

permission to enter the land and conduct intrusive investigations.

Andrew Davidson of English Heritage, for his support and professional advice.

Finally to Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council for their support and funding of the

investigation and to Roy Oldham for his personal support and enthusiasm for the project.


Appendix 1: Photographic Catalogue

The following paper and digital archive is currently held at the University of Manchester:

Frame

Trench Description Looking Format

001 1 General shot across entrance/gateway from western rampart, showing underlying earthwork

E Digital

002 - General shot from quarry car park, looking up towards south-west extent of Buckton earthwork

N Digital

003 2 Mid-excavation shot of Trench 2 from centre of earthwork, showing layer (101): demolition rubble?

E Digital

004 1 Mid-excavation shot of Trench 1 E Digital

005 2 Mid-excavation shot of internal rampart wall (108), running approximately north-south along eastern extent of earthwork

E Digital

006 2 General cleaning shot of Trench 2, showing internal western (internal) edge of (108) and up-cast Sandstone rubble layer (101)

SW Digital

007 2 Mid-excavation shot of randomly coursed sandstone rubble revetment wall (108)

S/SW Digital

008 2 General shot of up-cast sandstone rubble layer (101), showing Slot A (pre-ex)

S/SW Digital

009 2 General shot of layer (101) with interspersed pockets of staining from peat topsoil, and wall (108) in background

E Digital

010 2 View of internal edge of wall (108) and interface with layer (101)

S Digital

011 2 General shot of primary clean-up of Trench 2, showing sandstone up-cast deposit (101) and (102)

S/SW Digital

012 2 General shot of Trench 2, showing spread and pockets of (101) and topsoil staining

S Digital

013 2 General shot of mid-section of Trench 2, showing Slot A (pre-ex) and dark staining

S Digital

014 2 View along inner rampart/curtain wall (108) running north-south on eastern escarpment of earthwork

S Digital

015 2 View along north-south axis of walls (108) and (109), showing interface and Slot B (pre-ex)

S Digital

016 2 View of internal (west-facing) elevation of wall (108), showing ashlar sandstone facing-blocks and clay deposit (106)

E Digital

017 1 Mid-excavation shot of Trench 1 across ditch, directly below Trench 2, viewed from external bank

W Digital

018 1 As 017, showing rubble tumble (213) W Digital

019 1 Mid-excavation shot across stone rubble fill (213) in ditch (201)

S Digital

020 1 Detail of stone rubble fill (213) in ditch (201) S Digital

021 1 As 020 S Digital

022 1 Mid-excavation shot of Trench 1, showing exposed stone rubble fill (213)

E Digital

023 3 Mid-excavation shot of Trench 3, showing north-west corner of internal wall (152) of gatehouse structure [157], abutted to east-west wall (151) of northern curtain wall

E Digital


Frame


024 3 Mid-excavation shot of east-facing elevation of wall (152) forming western internal wall of gatehouse [157], showing robber trench disturbance (159)

W Digital

025 3 Primary cleaning of internal edge of northern rampart wall (151), showing abutment with north-south wall (152)

E

026 3 Primary cleaning of deposits in western extent of Trench 3, showing deposit (154), robber pit [153] and northern curtain wall (151)

N Digital

027 3 Primary cleaning of deposits associated with internal area of gatehouse [157], showing robber pit [153] filled by (159) and north-south wall (152) and collapsed/disturbed rubble from wall (151)

N Digital

028 3 Detail of north-east corner of wall (152), abutting northern curtain/rampart wall (151)

NE Digital

029 3 As 028 N Digital

030 3 Pre-excavation shot of stone rubble associated with walls (175) and (181) at eastern extent of entrance [171]

N Digital

031 3 As 030 W Digital

032 3 As 031, showing internal ashlar facing stones of internal rampart wall (181)

N Digital

033 2 Mid-excavation shot of south-facing section of Slot A, showing deposits (103) (lower) and (104) (upper), sealed by topsoil (001)

N Digital

034 2 Initial exposure of earth-fast stone rubble associated with outer revetment wall (109) on eastern profile of earthwork

W Digital


036 2 Stone rubble of rampart (108) - Digital

037 2 As 034, showing Slot B between external revetment wall (109) and internal rampart wall (108)

N Digital

038 1 North-facing section of ditch [201] and associated deposits

S Digital

039 1 As 038 SE Digital

040 1 As 039, showing up-cast deposits on western profile of mound

SW Digital

041 1 View into Slot C, showing rock-cut external façade of ditch on eastern profile

E Digital

042 1 As 041, showing up-cast deposits on western profile of mound and stone tumble into ditch [201]

W Digital

043 1 General mid-excavation shot of Trench 1, taken from Trench 2

E Digital

044 2 General shot showing Trench 2 from centre of the site S/SE Digital

045 - General shot from centre of the site S Digital

046 - As 045, showing south-west ‘entrance’ (19th century

incursion) in curtain wall S/SW Digital

047 3 General mid-excavation shot of Trench 3 NW Digital

048 1 North-facing section of ditch [201], showing sandstone rubble deposit (213)

S Digital

049 1 Detail of sandstone rubble deposits within ditch [201] S Digital


Frame


050 1 As 049, showing Sondage D and rock-cut eastern profile

S Digital

051 1 Detail of rock-cut profile of eastern extent of ditch [201] E Digital

052 1 As 051 E Digital

053 1 Detail of western profile of ditch [201] and sondage through up-cast sandstone deposits of mound

W Digital

054 1 Detail of rock-cut base of [201] visible in Sondage D - Digital

055 1 As 054 - Digital

056 1 View of eastern extent of ditch [201], showing north-facing section

S/SE Digital

057 1 General shot taken from base of ditch [201], showing height of earthwork on mound above

W Digital

058 1 Detail of rock-cut eastern profile of ditch [201] E Digital

059 - General working shot - Digital














073 3 Mid-excavation shot of deposit (154), showing heavy disturbance from robber activity with wall (151) of northern curtain wall aligned east-west, and western wall of gatehouse (152) aligned north-south

N Digital


75 1 North-facing section of ditch [201] S Digital

76 1 As 075, showing Sondage D S/E Digital

77 1 As 076, showing Sondage D SW Digital

78 1 View from top of section, looking down into Sondage D E Digital

79 1 View from top of external eastern bank into Trench 1 W Digital

80 1 Working shot S/SW Digital

81 1 View into base of Sondage D, showing rock-cut ‘V’-shaped profile of eastern basal profile

- Digital

82 3 mid-excavation shot showing primary slot across north-south wall (164), eastern wall of gatehouse, showing collapse

N/NW Digital

83 3 Mid-excavation shot of south-facing section of baulk overlying eastern elevation of (164) and entrance [171], subsequently removed

N Digital


85 3 As 082, showing east-facing elevation of wall (164) and clay deposit (184) above metalled surface (173) and layer (185) showing areas of burning and charcoal

W Digital


Frame


86 3 As 085, showing extent of northern rampart/ curtain wall

NW Digital


88 3 Showing wall (164) running north-south with Slot F through deposit (159) and possible post-socket [166]

E Digital

89 3 As 088, showing southern wall of gatehouse (167/168) running east-west to the rear

S Digital

90 3 Slot F through deposit (159), showing cut for [186], filled with building material (165), showing west-facing elevation of wall (164)

E Digital

91 3 As 090, showing cuts [186] and [187] in base of Slot F - Digital

92 3 Detail of possible stone-lined square post-socket [166] in south-east corner of gatehouse [157]

SE Digital

93 3 Slot F, showing partially excavated cuts [186] and [187] and west-facing elevation of (164)

E Digital

94 3 As 093, Slot F, showing north-facing section and partially excavated cuts [186] and [187]

W Digital

95 3 As 093, Slot F showing partially excavated cuts [186] and [187] under deposit (159)

W Digital

96 3 Detail of in-situ mortar deposit in rubble tumble/ slumpage in base of northern extent of Slot H, the result of robber/ demolition associated with wall (152)

E Digital

97 3 As 096, detail of mortar deposit - Digital

98 3 South-facing section of Test Pit 1 located to south of western extent of Trench 1, showing robber trench disturbance

N Digital

99 3 As 098, showing east-facing section of Test Pit 1 N Digital

100 3 Rubble tumble associated with upper coursing of wall (167/168)

E Digital

101 3 As 100 S/SE Digital

102 3 Mid-excavation shot through demolition deposit (180) within [171] showing underlying mixed clay and metalled surfaces (184), (185), (170) and possible post-hole [182] (pre-ex), with north-south wall (164) in background

W Digital

103 3 View of mid-excavation clean-up of surface (170), showing western elevation of eastern wall (175) of entrance [171]

N Digital

104 3 View of stone tumble/collapse of northern curtain wall (178), showing external profile and possible return of eastern gatehouse wall (175)

E Digital

105 3 View of Slot H, showing east-facing elevation of wall (152), western wall of gatehouse [157]

N Digital

106 3 As 105, showing stone rubble/tumble in section from internal collapse of (152), abutted to main body of main bulk of northern rampart/curtain wall (151) to the east

N Digital

107 3 Detail of in situ mortar below stone collapse of wall (152), showing depth of deposit

- Digital

108 3 Detail of slumped in situ eastern elevation of wall (152) before removal of rubble deposit

W Digital


Frame


109 3 As 108, after excavation of rubble deposit, showing extension of ashlar-faced masonry across east-west section of northern rampart/curtain wall (151)

W Digital

110 3 As 109, showing north-west extent/corner of internal area of gatehouse [157] projecting beyond extent of northern curtain wall (151)

NW Digital

111 3 Working shot: metalled surfaces (170) and (173) with associated occupation/debris layer (185) in entrance [171] between eastern wall (175) and western wall (164)

N/NE Digital

112 3 As 111, showing areas of discreet/localised burning and compaction within deposit (185) above metalled surface (170) in entrance [171]

N Digital

113 3 As 112 N/NE Digital

114 3 As 113, showing remaining baulk with stratified demolition/collapse deposits in situ

N/NW Digital

115 3 As 114 N/NW Digital

116 3 General shot of entrance [171], showing post hole [182] (pre-ex), clay deposit (184), and in-situ extant north-south wall (164)

W Digital

117 3 General shot of entrance [171], mid-excavation showing deposits (184), (185) and (170)

SW Digital

118 3 Shot of sondage through metalled surface (170) in [171] outside entrance, showing underlying larger stones of deposit (173/174)

W Digital

119 3 General shot of entrance [171], taken from atop of wall (175), showing central deposit (185) and clay (184) overlying metalled surfaces (170)

W Digital



122 3 General mid-excavation shot of [171], with metalled surface and associated deposits bounded by walls; eastern wall (175) and western wall (164)

N Digital

123 3 As 122, showing post-hole [182] (pre-ex) W Digital

124 3 General mid-excavation shot of entrance [171], showing large angular fragments of metalled surface (174) with overlying surface (173), post-hole [182] and north-south wall (164)

W Digital

125 3 General shot of entrance, showing extant wall (175) against external northern revetment/curtain wall extending east

S Digital

126 3 Detail of superimposition of metalled surfaces in [171], taken from outside entrance, showing stone footings (176) under wall (175) to the east

S Digital

127 3 General shot of [171], showing west-facing elevation of wall (175)

E Digital

128 3 Detail of post hole [182] prior to excavation in surface (170)

N Digital

129 3 Detail of wall stone wall (164) showing stone footings (172) in surface (173)

W Digital

130 3 Detail of western elevation of eastern wall (175) of entrance [171] and Slot E to the rear

E Digital


Frame


131 3 Detail of south-facing section of remaining baulk in entrance [171], showing demolition/slumpage stratigraphy with post hole [182] in metalled surface (170)

N Digital

132 3 General shot of primary metalled surface (174) under secondary surface (173) and tertiary surface (170) in entrance [171]

E Digital

133 3 Detailed of possible stone-lined post-socket at external junction of northern rampart (178) and corner of wall (175) in entrance [171]

S Digital

134 3 Mid-excavation clean-up of metalled surface (174), showing stone footings (176) for wall (175)

S Digital

135 3 As 134, from above E Digital

136 3 Shot of fully excavated post-hole [182] in surface (170) N Digital




140 3 Sondage through metalled surface (170), showing underlying metalled surface (173) and stone footing (172) under north-south wall (164)

N Digital

141 3 As 140 NW Digital


143 3 As 142 SW Digital

144 3 General shot of entrance [171] and associated deposits

SW Digital

145 3 Mid-excavation shot through metalled surface (170), showing underlying deposit (173) and (174)

W Digital

146 3 General shot of west-facing elevation of north-south wall (164) and entrance [171], showing Slot F

E Digital


148 3 West-facing elevation of wall (164), showing Slot F and associated deposits

N/NE Digital


150 3 West-facing elevation of wall (164) (foreground), with west-facing elevation of wall (175) (background)

E Digital

151 3 Detail of possible phase-break in west-facing elevation of wall (164)

E Digital

152 3 West-facing elevation of wall (164), showing mortar deposit (161) in-situ and Slot F

SE Digital

153 3 As 152, showing possible phase-break E Digital


155 - General shot of surrounding moorland and setting S Digital

156 - As 155 SW Digital

157 3 As 156, showing Trench 3 E Digital

158 - General working shot NW Digital

159 - General shot of setting, looking towards cairn on opposing hill

SW Digital

160 - As 155 S/SE Digital

161 - As 155 SE Digital

162 3 General shot of site and setting, showing Trench 3 NW Digital


Frame


163 - General shot of site and setting, showing quarry workings

S Digital

164 2 General shot of Trench 2 S/SW Digital


166 1 General shot of ditch, external bank and Trench 1 SE Digital

167 3 General shot of Trench 3 W Digital

168 1 General shot of north-facing section of ditch [201] SE Digital



171 1 Shot of Sondage, Slot D in Trench 1, showing rock-cut eastern profile of ditch [201]

- Digital

172 1 Partial shot of north-facing section of ditch [201] S Digital

173 1 General working shot of Trench 1 S Digital

174 3 General working shot of Trench 3, showing entrance [171]

N Digital

175 3 General working shot of Trench 3, showing internal walls of gatehouse [157]

N Digital

176 3 General shot of deposits and structural walls within [157]

N/NW Digital

177 3 General working shot of eastern wall and northern curtain wall of entrance [171]

N/NE Digital

178 3 General shot of internal deposits and walls associated with [157] and entrance [171]

NE Digital

179 3 General working shot of structural walls associated with [171] and [157]

NE Digital

180 3 General working shot of Trench 3, showing walls (164) and (175)

E Digital

181 3 General shot of wall (164), entrance [171] and wall (175)

NE Digital

182 3 General working shot of entrance [171] SW Digital


184 3 General shot of surfaces associated with [171] N/NW Digital

185 - General shot of moor land to the south S Digital

186 3 General shot of [171], Trench 3, showing dark deposit (185)

SW Digital

187 3 General shot of slot through metalled surfaces (173), showing underlying metalling (174) to north of entrance [171]

W Digital

188 3 As 186, showing robber trench (153) in [157] to rear SW Digital

189 3 General mid-excavation shot of [171] in Trench 3, showing deposit (185)

N/NW Digital





194 3 General shot of Trench 3, looking towards north-west corner of site, showing Mossley in background

E Digital

195 3 Detail of northern end of north-west facing elevation of wall (175) and footings (176)

E Digital

196 3 As 195, showing rubble core of northern rampart wall E Digital


Frame


197 3 Detail of southern end of west-facing elevation of wall (175)

E Digital

198 3 As 197, showing break in wall/ possible robbed out ashlar

E Digital

199 3 As 198, showing southern end of eastern elevation of wall (164), eastern wall of structure [157], showing kerb stones (172)

W Digital

200 3 East-facing elevation of wall (164), eastern wall of structure [157], showing footing/kerb stones (172)

W Digital

201 3 Southern end of east-facing elevation of wall (164), eastern wall of structure [157], showing footing/kerb stones (172)

W Digital

202 3 South-facing section of baulk within [171] N Digital

203 3 As 202, showing eastern end of baulk section N Digital

204 3 Northern end of west-facing elevation of wall (175), showing footing (176) in entrance [171]

E Digital


206 3 As 205, showing mid-section E Digital


208 3 South-facing section of baulk in [171], showing archaeological deposits associated with collapse/demolition of monument and structures

N Digital

209 3 As 208, eastern end of baulk in [171] N Digital

210 3 As 208, showing detail N Digital

211 3 East-facing section of wall (164), showing junction with remaining baulk and footings (172)

W Digital

212 3 East-facing elevation of wall (164) running north-south on western side of entrance [171], showing footings (172)

W Digital

213 3 Southern end of east-facing elevation of wall (164) W Digital

214 3 South-facing elevation of remaining baulk in [171] N Digital

215 3 West-facing elevation of wall (175) in [171], showing footing (176)

E Digital



218 3 General full-excavation shot of [171] entrance area, showing wall (164) to west and wall (175) to east with metalled deposits in central area

N/NE Digital

219 3 Detail of edged kerb stones (188) running east – west in surface (173) in entrance [171]

W Digital





224 3 General shot of slot through metalled surfaces (173) and (174) in entrance [171]

SW Digital

225 3 As 224, showing wall (175) SE Digital


227 3 Detail of possible square post-socket [189] associated with external gate in entrance [171]

E Digital



Frame



230 3 Slot/sondage across wall (164)/(160) at northern limit of excavation in Trench 3

W Digital

231 3 As 230, east-facing elevation of northern extent of wall (164)

W Digital

232 3 As 231, showing south-facing baulk section of limit of excavation in Trench 3

NW Digital

233 3 Internal south-facing elevation of northern rampart/curtain wall (178), to east of entrance [171]

N/NE Digital


235 3 As 233, showing tumble for (181) N/NE Digital


237 3 Shot of northern rampart/curtain wall (178), to east of entrance [171], showing internal ashlar -dressed façade and outer revetment tumble

W Digital

238 3 Shot of northern rampart/curtain wall (178) from external bank

SW Digital

239 3 South-facing (internal) elevation of northern rampart (178)

N/NE Digital


241 3 As 240 showing rubble tumble/ inner rampart with facing stones (181)

N/NW Digital

242 3 View of Slot J, showing inner (southern) face of stone rampart/curtain wall (151) running east-west and abutted to western wall (152) of gatehouse [157]

N Digital

243 3 As 242, view of Slot J showing deposit (156) SE Digital

244 3 View of west-facing elevation of north-south wall (152) E Digital


246 3 South-facing elevation of north rampart wall (151) in north-west corner of Trench 3, showing abutment with wall (152), running north-south

N Digital


248 3 General shot of north-west area of Trench 3, showing Slot I in robber trench deposit (154) and Slot J, showing walls (151) and (152)

NW Digital


250 3 As 249 showing deposits (153), (154) Slots I and J, and walls (151) and (152)

N Digital




254 3 East-facing elevation of wall (152), showing rough rubble core missing ashlar facing stones as a result of robbing activity in Slot H, showing robber cut [153]

W Digital



257 3 As 256, showing detail of cut for robber trench (159) W Digital

258

3 Detail of inner rubble coursing of east-facing elevation of wall (152) in Slot H

W Digital



Frame


260 3 As 259, showing intersection of outer northern rampart wall (151), running east-west

W Digital

261 3 East-facing elevation of wall (152) in Slot H, showing internal rubble coursing

SW Digital

262 3 East-facing elevation of continuation of wall (152) to the north, extending/truncating east-west northern curtain wall/rampart (151)

W Digital


264 3 As 263 S/SW Digital

265 3 General working shot of trench 3 E Digital

266 - General shot across earthwork to south-west 19th

century entrance S Digital

267 3 General working shot of trench 3 SE Digital



270 3 As 269, showing external revetment and outer ditch N/NE Digital

271 - Panoramic shot of site in setting N/NE Digital

272 - As 271, showing Mossley NE Digital

273 - As 272 N Digital

274 - As 271, showing Hartshead Pike N/NW Digital

275 - As 271, showing Micklehurst and possible barbican NW Digital

276 - As 271, showing Carr Brooke village NW Digital

277 - As 276 S/SW Digital

278 - As 277, showing earth-fast western curtain wall/ rampart

SW Digital

279 - General view across inner area of earthwork, showing 19

th century entrance to the south-west

S Digital

280 3 Internal south-facing elevation of northern rampart/curtain wall (160)/ also forms northern wall of gatehouse [157]

NW Digital

281 3 North-east corner of gatehouse [157], showing wall (160) running east-west and butted wall (164) running north-south

NE Digital

282 3 As 281 NE Digital


284 3 As 283, showing east-facing elevation of northern extent of (152)

NW Digital

285 2 General shot of Trench 2, showing sandstone rubble deposit (101)

E Digital


287 2 As 286, showing Slot A NE Digital




291 2 South-facing section of Slot A N Digital


293 2 View along internal rampart/ curtain wall (108), showing Slot B and external revetment (109)

S/SW Digital

294 2 As 293 S/SW Digital




Frame






301 2 West-facing (internal) elevation of wall (109) in Slot B E Digital


303 2 Showing east-facing elevation of collapsed stone wall of external revetment wall (109) on eastern extent of mound in Slot C

W Digital



306 3 Composite rectified photo of west-facing elevation of wall (175) in entrance [171]

E Digital

307 2 General shot of Trench 2, showing deposit (101) E Digital



310 2 As 309, showing Slot A NW Digital


312 2 As 311 S/SE Digital



315 2 As 314, showing 19th century incursion in south-west

corner of earthwork SW Digital


317 2 Detail of sandstone rubble deposits (101), (102) etc S Digital


319 2 As 318, showing Slot A, north-facing section S Digital

320 2 As 319, showing Slot A, south-facing section N Digital

321 2 As 320, showing Slot A, south-facing section N Digital

322 2 As 321, showing Slot A, east-facing section W Digital

323 2 View along north-south rampart/curtain wall (108), showing west-facing ashlar blocks

SW Digital

324 2 View of wall (108), showing Slot B in foreground S Digital

325 2 View along wall (108) N Digital


327 2 As 326, showing robber pit [191] N Digital

328 2 As 327, view of wall (108) N Digital





333 2 View of robber pit [191] in wall (108) at southern extent of Trench 2

NE Digital

334 2 View of west-facing elevation (internal façade) of ashlar rampart wall (108)

NE Digital


336 2 View of Slot B through deposits between inner rampart wall (108) and external revetment wall (109) on eastern profile of earthwork

N Digital




Frame




341 2 Detail of Slot B, showing backfill deposits between walls (108) and (109)

S Digital

342 2 West-facing elevation of inner face of revetment wall (109)

E Digital


344 2 View of external revetment wall (109) over eastern bank of mound

W Digital


346 2 As 345, showing roughly-faced collapsed blocks W Digital




350 2 Extension of Trench 2 to the north, following line of wall (108) on internal face

N Digital

351 2 View of west-facing elevation of wall (108) E Digital

352 2 General shot of Trench 2, showing Slot A W Digital


354 - General shot of volunteers on western rampart/earthwork

W Digital

355 - General shot of UMAU staff - Digital

356 3 General working shot of volunteers in Trench 3 NW Digital

357 3 General working shot of trench 3 NW Digital





362 3 As 361, showing excavation of gatehouse [157] N Digital

363 3 As 362, showing excavation of gatehouse [157] and entrance [171]

NE Digital


365 3 As 364, showing northern rampart/curtain wall (151) N Digital

366 3 As 365, showing Slot J NW Digital

367 3 General working shot, showing Slot H in [157] N Digital

368 3 General working shot in area of gatehouse [157] E Digital


370 3 General working shot in area of gatehouse [157], showing volunteers in Slot H

S Digital

371 3 As 370, showing volunteers in internal northern area of gatehouse [157]

E Digital

372 3 General working shot showing recording elevation of (152), Slot J

- Digital

373 3 General working shot N/NE Digital

374 3 General view across Trench 3, fully excavated E Digital


376 3 General shot of view from north-west corner of rampart, showing Carrbrook village

W Digital

377 3 General working shot of UMAU staff in entrance [171] NE Digital

378 3 General working shot, showing archaeological deposits in gatehouse [159]

NE Digital


Frame


379 3 General post-excavation shot of Slot J and H at either side of wall (152) in [157]

N Digital



382 3 Post-excavation shot of south-east corner of [157], showing north-south wall (164) and east-west wall return (167) and post-socket [166] in south-east corner and Slot F

E Digital

383 3 Post-excavation shot of south-east corner of [157], showing Slot G on southern elevation of wall (167), post-socket [166] and sondage against western elevation of wall (164) in Slot F

E Digital

384 3 Post-excavation shot of wall (164) and footings (172), showing collapse of upper courses into entrance [171]

E Digital

385 3 General working shot of UMAU staff in [171] E Digital


387 3 As 387, showing inner (exposed southern) elevation of wall (178), to the east of entrance [171]

NW Digital


389 3 General working shot of UMAU staff in [171] SW Digital

390 3 Post-excavation shot of gatehouse [157] SW Digital

391 3 Post-excavation shot of metalled surface (174) outside entrance [171]

E Digital

392 3 Post-excavation shot of wall (175), showing slumpage and rubble of northern revetment wall (178)

E Digital

393 3 General working shot of UMAU staff sampling layer (185) in [171]

- Digital

394 3 As 393, showing post-hole [182] (pre-ex) truncating surface (170)

- Digital

395 3 General post-excavation shot of entrance [171] prior to excavation of sondages through surfaces

N Digital

396 3 General shot of gatehouse [157] and entrance [171] NE Digital

397 3 General shot of Slot F S Digital

398 3 As 397, showing parallel cuts [186] and [187] - Digital

399 3 General shot of deposits in [171], showing metalled surface (170)

N/NE Digital


401 3 Detail of south-facing baulk section and wall (164) in [171]

N/NW Digital

402 3 Excavation of post-hole [182] in surface (170) N Digital

403 3 General working shot N/NW Digital


405 3 General shot of [157] and [171], post-excavation NE Digital

406 3 General shot of [157] and Slot F, post-excavation N Digital

407 3 General shot of [157] and [171] NE Digital

408 3 General shot of [157] NW Digital

409 3 Detail of (164) N Digital

410 3 General shot of [171], post-excavation N Digital

411 3 general shot of wall (152), showing Slot H N Digital

412 3 General shot of [157] and [171] E Digital



Frame


414 3 General shot of Trench 3 E Digital


416 3 General shot of Trench 3 W Digital



419 - General shot of Trench 1, taken from eastern rampart E Digital

420 3 View from northern rampart NE Digital


422 3 As 068, showing Hartshead Pike beacon in the distance

NW Digital

423 3 Shot along external revetment, north of entrance [171], showing Slot E

W Digital

424 3 General shot of Trench 3, post-excavation W Digital

425 3 General shot W Digital

426 3 As 425, showing 19th century incursion into earthwork

in south-west corner S/SW Digital


428 2 As 427, showing Trench 2 S/SE Digital

429 - General shot of earthwork SE Digital

430 3 Post-excavation shot of wall (177), Slot E and external revetment wall (178)

W Digital


432 3 General shot of Trench 3 E Digital


434 3 As 433, with Slot J in foreground E Digital

435 - General shot of view over Carrbrook village from western rampart/earthwork

SW Digital


437 3 General robber trench incursion [191] shot of quarry from southern earthwork

S Digital

438 3 As 438, showing concrete base of starfish SE Digital

439 3 General shot across site NW Digital

440 2 Shot along internal rampart wall (108), showing robber N Digital


442 2 Shot of wall (108), showing internal ashlar-faced stone blocks

NE Digital

443 - General shot of Carrbrook and Micklehurst from western rampart

W Digital

444 - As 443 W Digital

445 - As 444 from quarry car park SW Digital

446 - As 445 NW Digital

447 - As 446 N/NW Digital

448 - As 447 N/NW Digital

449 - Shot of south-west corner of earthwork from quarry car park

NW Digital

450 - Shot of quarry workings from car park E Digital

451 - As 450 SE Digital


Appendix 2: List of Contexts 2008 (2007 inclusive)

Context No.

Description Trench

(001) Topsoil: Top surface of heather and thin layer of humic soil 2/07

(002) Subsoil: Dark Brownish Brown peat with very occasional medium fragments of grit stone

2/07

(003) Dark reddish brown sand with high percentage of small to medium fragments of angular sandstone

2/07

(004) Compact mid brownish yellow grit stone fragments in a sandy matrix 2/07

(005) Compacted light yellowish yellow angular sandstone fragments 2/07

(006) Compact up-cast sandstone levelling/ raised layer 2/07

(007) Dark brownish black peat 2/07

(008) Dark grey sandy silt 2/07

009 Not Used -/07

010 Not Used -/07

(011) Dark brownish brown sandy soil containing frequent medium sized sandstone fragments

3/07

(012) Compacted mid brownish small sandstone fragments in a sandy matrix 3/07

(013) Ashlar wall 3/07

(014) Roughly laid large angular slabs of grit stone 3/07



(017) Ashlar wall [similar to (016) & (013)] 1/07

(018) Roughly laid angular slabs of sandstone [similar to (014)] 1/07

(019) Mix of roughly dressed stone blocks and angular fragments 1/07

(020) Ashlar wall east to west continuation of (017) 1/07

(021) Mid brownish brown sandy loam 1/07

(022) Compacted light yellowish yellow angular sandstone fragments [similar to (005)]

1/07

(023) Dark brownish brown sand 1/07

(024) Mid brownish brown sandy soil 1/07

(025) Dark brownish black peat 1/07

(026) Mid yellowish brown sandy soil 3/07

(101) Spread of demolition rubble, small to large angular sandstone blocks in matrix of mid yellowish brown degraded sandstone, with occasional yellowish brown clay

2/08

(102) Peat subsoil above (101), same as (002) 2/08

(103) Compact layer of yellow sandstone chippings, probably up-cast from ditch cutting, possibly reused ‘levelling’ deposit, approx 1.0m below present surface and under wall [108]

2/08

(104) Layer of sandstone stone rubble, possible compacted surface above (103) & (105) and below (101) & wall [108]

2/08

(105) Clayey sand with less frequent stone inclusions under (104) 2/08

(106) Localised area of mid brownish yellow compact clay with sandstone rubble, associated with inner face of wall (108)

2/08

(107) Spread of clayey sand under (106) and (102), similar to (105) 2/08

(108) North-south orientated wall, consisting of randomly coursed sandstone. Wall curves following line of ditch. Robber activity was visible along its length, culminating in robber pit [191] to the south

2/08

(109) Partially surviving outer wall for possible rampart or stone revetment, heavy disturbance and suggestion of collapse, built on layer (212)

2/08


Context No.

Description Trench

(150) Topsoil, heather, moss, humic soil and random sandstone fragments, similar to (001)

3/08

(151) Partially visible sandstone curtain wall. Orientated east west, medium to large sized roughly faced sandstone blocks with rubble core in southern elevation.

3/08

(152) Sandstone wall. Orientated north south, consisting of medium to large sized roughly faced sandstone blocks (to the west) with a rubble core. Part of the facing remained to the north of the wall; this was keyed into wall (160). The wall had been damaged through 18

th century robber

pits leaving the core exposed in the eastern elevation. Forms western wall of building [157].

3/08

[153] Cut for circular 18th century robber pit, partially cut into southern end of

wall (152), filled by (159) 3/08

(154) Area partially enclosed by walls (151) and (152). Fill consisted of mid yellowish brown sand and small to medium angular and sub-angular sandstone fragments. Disturbed by early 18

th century activity (153).

3/08

(155) Light grey gritty silty sand with small angular sandstone fragments, underlying wall (151), above (156)

3/08

(156) Mid yellowish brown silty sand with med to large angular and sub-angular sandstone fragments, underlying base of wall (152), below (155) and above (007)

3/08

[157] Building. Possible gatehouse with interior dimensions of c.6.5m x c.3.3m. Includes walls (152), (167), (164) and curtain wall (160)

3/08

(158) Area of random medium to large sandstone blocks and fragments within mid yellowish sand. Probably primary tumble from collapse of surrounding walls of building [157]

3/08

(159) Very disturbed area through 18th century activity, mixture of brownish

black peat soil with small to large sandstone inclusions within cut for robber trench [153]

3/08

(160) Northern curtain wall. Forms northern wall of building [157], well faced stone visible in the southern elevation. The northern extent of the wall was not clear, however there was a dense concentration of sandstone fragments for c.2.2m to the north

3/08

(161) Layer of crumbly whitish yellow mortar exposed to north east of building [157]. This layer was only exposed in the corner of the room.

3/08

(162) Partially exposed flat laid sandstone fragment, possibly an extension of layer (174) within the entrance [171]

3/08

(163) Mid yellowish sand and small to medium sandstone fragments: undisturbed levelling layer in [157] associated with wall (164)

3/08


Context No.

Description Trench

(164) Sandstone wall. Orientated north south between building [157] and entranceway [171]. The wall consisted of well-faced medium to large sandstone blocks with a sandstone rubble core. The eastern face of the wall was badly damaged and has a noticeable slope or arch to the east. The eastern face also sits upon foundation/kerb stones (172). This wall was keyed into wall (167) to the south and appeared to abut wall (160) to the north.

3/08

(165) Located within base of Slot F, to south west of wall (164). Compact layer of small to medium angular and sub-angular sandstone fragments within compact mid yellowish brown silty sand deposit in cut [186]

3/08

[166] Possible post pad adjacent to wall (164). Feature consisted of three - five medium sandstone blocks arranged in a rectangle, with an interior width of c.0.2m.

3/08

(167) Southern wall of building [157]. Orientated east west, this wall was badly damaged, probably through 18

th century activity. The exterior

face to the south was partially exposed to reveal faced sandstone masonry to a depth of 2.20m. The interior of the wall was partially exposed revealing a rubble core.

3/08

(168) Disturbed by 18th century activity. Wall (167) destroyed in this area. 3/08

(169) Tumble from wall (167). Medium yellowish brown sand with small to large blocks of sandstone masonry.

3/08

(170) Metalled surface of small sub-angular worn sandstone fragments set into mid yellowish sand, with pockets of greyish silty clay and frequent charcoal fragments. Very compact surface between kerb stones (172) and (176). Forms uppermost the surface of entranceway [171]

3/08

[171] Entranceway. Consists of eastern wall (164), western wall (175) and metalled surface (170). The entranceway is c.3.2m wide and bordered by sandstone kerb stones (172) and (176). A second lightly metalled surface (173) underlay surface (170) and abutted surface (174)

3/08

(172) Sandstone kerb or foundation stones underlying wall (164), the first two courses were exposed to the depth of layers (173) and (174). There was a similar row of masonry to the east (176). This feature was visible in entranceway [171] and in the north west extension of the trench

3/08

(173) Lightly metalled surface consisting of small to medium angular to sub-angular sandstone fragments in compact mid yellowish brown sand underlying surface (170) in [171]

3/08

(174) Metalled surface bordered by a row of medium sized sandstone fragments roughly faced to the south (188). This layer is very similar to (173) with a higher percentage of medium sized sandstone fragments. To the east adjacent to kerb (172) the grit stone fragments were set into a mid grey gritty deposit. (174) appears below (173) in [171]

3/08


Context No.

Description Trench

(175) Sandstone wall. Orientated north south to the east of entranceway [171]. The wall consisted of well faced medium to large sandstone blocks with a sandstone rubble core; the eastern face was not visible or clearly defined as it appeared to merge with the sandstone chippings of (179). The wall sits upon foundation/kerb stones (176) and was either arched or had slumped in a similar manner to wall (164)

3/08

(176) Sandstone kerb or foundation stones underlying wall (175) and abutting surfaces (170) and (174)/(173). As with (172) depth of this feature was not fully ascertained

3/08

(177) Spread of mid yellowish small, with occasional medium sandstone chippings and mid yellowish brown sand

3/08

(178) Possible curtain wall/walkway orientated east west with a faced edge visible to the south. The northern edge had been heavily eroded, but may be represented by the end of the row of kerb stones (176). This suggested a width of c.2.2m. The wall consisted of medium to large sandstone blocks to the south with a rubble core. The exposed area consisted of a layer of flat laid stones, which merged with wall (175)

3/08

(179) Thick deposit of loose small to medium sandstone chippings and fragments, within mid yellowish sand.

3/08

(180) Area disturbed by 18th century activity, fill consists of blackish loamy

soil, sand and small to large sandstone masonry. 3/08

(181) Spread of loose sandstone, with fragments ranging in size from small to large

3/08

[182] Cut for sub-circular post-hole in metalled surface (170), centrally positioned within gateway/entrance [171]; ‘U’ -shaped base, maximum width 0.5m in plan

3/08

(183) Fill of cut [182]; mid greyish brown silty clayey-sand with frequent medium-large sub-angular inclusions of natural sandstone, possible chocking/packing material

3/08

(184) Yellow clay underlying demolition/rubble of wall (164) in [171]. Directly above (185). Contained medieval pottery sherd

3/08

(185) Mid brown silty loam above metalled surface (170). Possible occupation debris containing medieval pottery fragments, iron nails, charcoal and localised patches of clay from possible roof collapse

3/08

[186] Possible foundation cut for wall (164) aligned north-south, forming eastern wall of possible gatehouse structure [157]. Filled by (165). Visible in Slot F

3/08

[187] Cut roughly parallel with [186], visible in Slot F, possibly disturbed by 19

th century robber trench activity (159)

3/08

(188) Row of faced ‘kerb’ stones running east-west, visible in metalled deposit (173)/(174) in entrance [171]

3/08

[189] Cut for possible timber post-socket on northern extent of wall (175) in entrance [171]. Sub-square in plan, filled by (190)

3/08

(190) Mid red-brown sandy, loamy-silt fill of [189] 3/08

[191] Cut for robber trench in southern extent of wall (108) 2/08


Context No.

Description Trench

(192) Visible in baulk section overburden in entrance [171]; same as (158) on eastern side of wall (164)

3/08

(193) Visible in baulk section overburden in entrance [171]; up-cast rubble and redeposited material as a result of secondary 18

th & 19

th century

disturbance

3/08

[201] Original cut for the rock-cut ‘V’ shaped ditch, c. 4.0m deep; Phase 1 1/08

(202) Primary fill of [201], waterlogged clayey silt, primary in-wash/slumpage; Phase 1

1/08

(203) Secondary fill of [201], in-wash/slumpage of fine silty-clay; Phase 1 1/08

(204) Redeposited light to mid greyish yellow clayey sand, frequent angular sandstone inclusions; Phase 1

1/08

(205) Redeposited mid yellowish brown clayey sand with degraded natural sandstone inclusions, rapid in-wash; Phase 1

1/08

(206) Natural slumpage above (204) and (205), medium to large sandstone deposit; Phase 1

1/08

(207) Clean deposit of natural brownish grey clayey sand; Phase 1 1/08

(208) Mid to dark purplish grey-brown clay to silty loam, abundant angular and sub-angular sandstone inclusions in [217]; Phase 2

1/08

(209) Mid to dark purplish grey-brown loose clay and sandy loam, abundant angular and sub-angular sandstone, similar to (208) in [217]; Phase 2

1/08

(210) Dark brownish-black humic peaty loam with very loose yellow sandstone inclusions, possible redeposited material slumpage from mound into eastern profile of re-cut ditch [217] after period of abandonment/decommissioning; Phase 2

1/08

(211) Very loose yellow angular and sub-angular sandstone, possibly redeposited sandstone from levelling layers of mound; Phase 2

1/08

(212) Thin band of angular and sub-angular sandstone above (211), with dark purplish grey black loamy soil infill; Phase 2

1/08

(213) Random sandstone fill, consisting of medium to large angular and sub-angular stones, some possibly faced. Possible active demolition or tumble from curtain wall with loose infill consisting of dark purplish brown loamy soil; Phase 3

1/08

(214) Dark purplish black peat, natural soil formation and in-wash layer from top of external bank

1/08

(215) Random tumble of angular and sub-angular sandstone, possible erosion layer from curtain wall

1/08

(216) Layer of soil formation over ditch fills, thin covering of moss and heather over rubble and peat

1/08

[217] Possible re-cut of ditch cutting through (206) and (207) 1/08


Appendix 3: Excavation Archive

Year/ Sheet

Dwg. No.

Tr. Description Plan/ Section

Scale

08/01 1 2 Mid excavation plan of Trench 2 showing rubble up-cast layer (101) and internal rampart wall (108)

Plan 1:20

08/01 2 2 Profile across Trench 2 running east-west, showing robber trench activity

Profile 1:100

08/02 3 2 Continuation of Sheet 2; final meter-age of mid-excavation plan of Trench 2 (11m – 14m)

Plan 1:20

08/03 4 2 Post-excavation plan of Trench 2, showing revetment wall (109) and stone rampart wall (108) on eastern profile of earthwork

Plan 1:20

08/03 5 2 Extended plan of outer revetment wall (109) on eastern profile of earthwork in Trench 2

Plan 1:20

08/03 6 2 Extended plan of rampart wall (108) on eastern profile of earthwork in Trench 2

Plan 1:20

08/04 7 1 Post-excavation plan of Trench 1, showing original cut of ditch [201] in Sondage D

Plan 1:20

08/05 8 1 North-facing section of ditch (201)/(217) in Trench 1

Section 1:20

08/06 9 3 Mid-excavation plan of Trench 3, showing stone walls of gatehouse [157] and entrance [171]

Plan 1:20

08/07 10 3 Post-excavation plan of Trench 3, including metalled surfaces (170), (173), & (174), inner rampart wall (177), and external northern revetment walls (155), (160) & (178)

Plan 1:20

08/08 11 3 Southern (south-facing) elevation of external rampart wall (178) in Slot E, to the east of entrance [171]

Elevation 1:10

08/08 12 3 South-facing section of possible post-hole [182] in metalled surface (170) of entrance [171]

Section 1:10

08/09 13 3 Southern (south-facing) elevation of internal façade of wall (160), part of northern wall of Gatehouse/Guardhouse building [157] located to the west of the entrance [171] in Trench 3

Elevation 1:10

08/09 14 3 Western (west-facing) elevation of wall (164), and abutting wall (167)/(168) to the south, forming part of the south-east corner of the Gatehouse/Guardhouse [157] to the west of the entrance [171]

Elevation 1:10

08/09 15 3 Continuation of drawing 14, southern extent of wall (164)

Elevation 1:10

08/10 16 3 Southern (south-facing) elevation of wall (167)/(168), southern wall of Gatehouse [157]

Elevation 1:10

08/10 17 3 Southern (south-facing) elevation of wall (162) in Slot J

Elevation 1:10

08/11 18 3 Western (west-facing) elevation of wall (152) in Slot J

Elevation 1:10

08/12 19 - Profile across earthwork Profile 1:250

08/10 20 3 Eastern (east-facing) elevation of wall (152), showing disturbance by robber trench (159)

Elevation 1:10


Appendix 4: Buckton Castle 2008 Assemblage Archive

Buckton Castle, Tameside 2008: Pottery Assemblage Catalogue

SF No

Trench Context Period Type No Wt (g)

ENV Part CCJ Form Decoration Date Range

Notes

1 Trench 3 (185) Medieval Buff Gritty ware

4 17 1 BS - Hollow ware - cooking pot? (external sooting)

no evidence of glaze or decorative treatment but possibility of some slipped colour to external surface

L11th - 13

th c

Pitted and abraded; frequent sub-angular quartzitic inclusions and patchy surface oxidation/reduction/external surface margin in reduced/ internal surface margin is oxidised firing to pink-buff colour; signs of external sooting on a small fragment- possibly shoulder; wheel thrown

2 Trench 3 (184) Medieval Gritty ware 1 1 1 BS - Hollow-ware jug?

no evidence of glaze or decorative treatment but possibility of some slipped colour to external surface

L11th - 13

th c

thin-walled oxidised orange-pink on internal surface; reduced external surface margin but with mid purple brown slip; occasional sub-rounded quartzitic inclusions not as frequent or large as latter vessel; quartz-tempered generally oxidised fabric; finer ware than SF1

3 ? (001)/(002) Post-med annular ware

6 22 1 BS - - lathe turned incised bands of blue slipped decoration

19th -

4 ? (001)/(002) Post-med Creamware 1 1 1 BS - - - 19th -

5 ? (001)/(002) Post-med Stoneware 7 29 1 BS/ base/ rim

SF8 fineware tankard/cup

- 19th -

6 ? (001)/(002) Post-med Dark-glazed fineware

1 1 1 BS - - - L18th/ 19th

-

7 ? (001)/(002) Post-med Tin-glazed ware

1 >1 1 BS - - blue & white thin glaze

L18th/ 19th

Very abraded transfer-printed ware?


8 ? (001)/(002) Post-med Stoneware 1 8 1 Rim SF5 tall flared fineware tankard/cup

- 19th lathe-turned incised bands with salt-glazed external brown iron-washed surface

9 ? (001)/(002) Post-med Stoneware 5 38 4 BS/ base

SF5&8

coarsewares/tall flared cup

decorated with rouletted and impressed Notts-Derby

10 ? (001)/(002) Post-med Whitewares 2 2 2 BS - undecorated L19th/ 20th

-

11 ? (001)/(002) Post-med Stoneware 1 1 1 Rim - hollow ware white stoneware with incised line around rim

12 ? (001)/(002) Post-med Whiteware 1 2 1 Rim - hollow ware unglazed white-firing clay fineware with external scalloped press-moulded decoration

abraded/damage to lower quarter

13 ? (001)/(002) Post-med ceramic 1 4 1 ball - ball - - Codd-bottle stopper/marble/ mixed clay matrix visible

Total 32 126 17

Table 4.1 Catalogue of pottery recovered during 2008 excavations at Buckton Castle, Tameside.

Key:

BS = Body sherd

Medieval = Late 11th to 13th century

Post-med = Post medieval (AD1650 – 1850)


Buckton Castle, Tameside 2008: Metalwork (Ferrous and Non-Ferrous) & Industrial Residue Assemblage Catalogue

SF No

Trench Context Type No Wt (g) ENV Form Date Range Notes

14 Trench 3 (180) Fe 1 1 1 Iron nail medieval Small nail; missing head?

15 ? (001)/(002) Fe 2 8 2 Iron nail medieval small nails; heavily oxidised

16 ? (001)/(002) Fe 1 11 1 Iron nail medieval Medium sized nail; heavily concreted; possibly bent through use?

17 ? (001)/(002) Pb 1 12 1 scrap medieval Flattened piece of lead; possibly a scrap; roof or window flashing?

18 ? (001)/(002) Fe 2 19 1 Iron nail medieval heavily corroded; head and shank compete; corrosion visible in broken section

19 Trench 3 (170)/(173) in [171] Fe 2 12 2 Iron nail & CBM scrap

medieval heavily corroded; adhesions of oxidised CBM

20 Trench 3 (184) in [171] Fe 2 6 2 Iron nails: complete

medieval Corroded but one has visible squared/flattened shank; both complete; only short; possible carpentry nails/tacks?

21 Trench 3 (185) in [171] Fe 5 27 2

Iron nails & CBM/Industrial residue scraps

medieval heavily corroded scarps of oxidised industrial residue/CBM with iron waste adhered (smelting); two diagnostic nail fragments (flattened shanks)

22 Trench 3 (174) in [171] Fe 1 2 1 Iron nail medieval small shank; bent suggesting use; head missing; oxidised concretion

23 Trench 3 (185) in [171] IR/ waster?

1 7 1 Industrial waste

medieval associated with medieval pottery fragments (11th - 13th century)

24 Trench 3 (185) in [171] Fe 1 2 1 Iron scrap medieval heavily oxidised

25 Trench 3 (184) Fe 11 44 8 Iron nail & CBM scrap

medieval 8 discernable fragments of iron nails; one large 'rivet' type; bent but retains corroded head; 7 small carpentry nails; heavily corroded; oxidised concretions

Total 30 151 23

Table 4.2 Catalogue of metalwork recovered during 2008 excavations at Buckton Castle, Tameside.

Key:

IR = Industrial Residue


Table 4.3 Catalogue of building materials recovered during 2008 excavations at Buckton Castle, Tameside.

Key:

CBM = Ceramic Building Material

Buckton Castle, Tameside 2008: Ceramic Building Materials Assemblage Catalogue

SF No

Trench Context Type Wt (g)

Description Date Range

26 3 (180) Mortar 54 concreted fragments of mortar (1 piece of lime); solidified with lime-based concretions

Medieval

27 3 (180) Sandstone 6 fragment of SST (natural) ?

28 3 (185)/(170) interface in [171] CBM/ fired clay

3 oxidised red-orange sandy fabric medieval

29 3 (185) in [171] Sandstone 7 very red (possibly scorched) angular fragment ?

30 3 (185) in [171] Fired clay? 16 clay (partially fired??) oxidised bright orange with iron nail fragment inclusion

medieval

31 3 (185)/(170) interface in [171] Mortar 4 fragment of lime mortar medieval

32 ? (001)/(002) Mortar 21 concreted angular fragment of white lime-mortar 'pointing'

medieval

33 ? (001)/(002) Mortar 18 concreted angular fragment of lime-mortar 'pointing'

medieval

34 ? (001)/(002) Sandstone 34 laminated fractured fragments of red sandstone ?

35 ? (001)/(002) Shale 1 burnt/ calcified

36 ? (001)/(002) Ochre 3 two pieces of degraded ochre

37 3 (164) in [157] Mortar 221 concreted lime mortar pointing - degraded with natural inclusions of sub-angular natural sandstone pebbles and grits

medieval

38 3 (152) in [157] Mortar 413 degraded fragmentary lime-based mortar with inclusions of shale, grit and charcoal; very soft & powdery

medieval

39 3 (166) in [157] Mortar 456 degraded fragmentary lime-based mortar with inclusions of shale, oxidised CBM and charcoal; very soft & powdery

medieval

Total 1257


Buckton Castle, Tameside 2008: Organic Material Assemblage Catalogue

SF No

Trench Context Type No Wt (g) Form Notes Date Range

40 3 (185) in [171] Bone 5 12 Animal bones; small bird bone; butchered rib and leg bones possibly sheep (lamb)

butchered/ filleted/

41 3 (180) Bone 2 5 Animal bones; small rib bones

butchered/ filleted/

42 3 (184) in [171] Bone 1 2 Animal bone; possibly bird bone, hollow); shows post-depositional discolouration; fractured marrow fragment

43 3 (184)/(185) in [171] Bone 1 >1g Animal bone; bird (chicken?) bone; very pale yellow/cream colour suggesting it has been boiled?? Or exposed to an open environment??

44 3 (151)/(152) collapse in Slot H

Shell 1 >1g Snail shell ENVIRO SAMPLE?

45 3 (180) Leather 2 4 Worked scraps No diagnostic features; unsecure context; reddening on single surfaces corresponds to raised lumps possible decorative detailing?

46 1 (202) in [201] Leather 1 1 worked scrap; off-cut Leather off-cut scrap; post-depositional staining from peat?

medieval?

Total 13 24

Table 4.4 Catalogue of organic materials recovered during 2008 excavations at Buckton Castle, Tameside.


Buckton Castle, Tameside 2008: Clay Tobacco Pipe Assemblage Catalogue

SF No

Trench Context Stems (S)

Bowls (B)

(Mp) Wt (g)

Section Fabric Bore (inches)

Decoration Date Range

Notes

47 3 (159) in [153], Slot H

1 0 0 2 round white 0.1 none L19th

48 - (001)/(002) 14 0 0 21 0.07 - 0.09 L19th

49 - - 0 1 0 1 white n/a none Mid-L19th 9 fragments from 1 bowl

Total 15 1 0 24

Table 4.5 Catalogue of clay tobacco pipes recovered during 2008 excavations at Buckton Castle, Tameside.

Key:

S = Stems

B = Bowls

Mp = Mouthpiece

Wt = weight in grams


Buckton Castle, Tameside 2008: Glass Assemblage Catalogue

SF No

Trench Context Period Type No Wt (g)

ENV Part Form Decoration Date Range

50 ? (001)/(002) Post-med Bottle 4 70 3 base/BS/neck bottle green glass L19th C

51 ? (001)/(002) Post-med Bottle 2 35 2 neck/BS bottle aqua; carbonated water bottles; impressed trademark on BS

L19th C

52 ? (001)/(002) Post-med marble 1 5 1 complete marble L19th C

53 3 (u/s) to [171] Post-med Bottle 1 1 1 BS bottle dark green L19th C

Total 8 111 7

Table 4.6 Catalogue of Glass recovered during 2008 excavations at Buckton Castle, Tameside.

Buckton Castle, Tameside 2008: Environmental Sample Assemblage Catalogue

SF No Trench Context Period Type Wt (g) Notes

54 ? ? ? Charcoal 5 charcoal fragments

Total 5

Table 4.7 Catalogue of environmental samples recovered during 2008 excavations at Buckton Castle, Tameside.


Plates: Illustrations

Fig. 7: Post-excavation plan of Trench 1/08, showing primary cut for ditch [201] in sondage D & possible re-cut [217] evident on eastern profile in sondage C.


Fig. 9: Post-excavation plan of Trench 1/08, showing primary cut for ditch [201] in sondage D & possible re-cut [217] evident on eastern profile in sondage C.


Fig. 10: Post-excavation plan of Trench 2/08, showing internal wall (108) and external curtain wall (109) on eastern profile of earthwork.


Fig. 11: Post-excavation plan of Trench 2/08, showing internal wall (108), external curtain wall (109) on eastern profile of earthwork and upcast yellow

sandstone layer (101)/(102).


Fig. 12: Post-excavation plan of Trench 3/08, showing gatehouse structure [157, and entrance [171], with the northern curtain wall (178) and (151) extending

to the east and west.


Fig. 13: Post-excavation plan of Trench 3/08, showing gatehouse structure [157] and entrance [171, with the northern curtain wall (178) & (151) extending to the east and west.


Fig. 14a & 14b: Profile of Buckton Castle, showing rock-cut ditch on eastern extent of earthwork (Profile

1) and disturbance from 19th

century incursion into upcast bank on southern profile (Profile 2)

Fig. 15: Plan of Buckton Castle, showing trench locations, earthworks and orientation of surveyed profiles


Fig. 16: North-facing section of ditch in Trench 1/08, showing rock-cut eastern profile and upcast levelling

deposit on western profile, with central layer of stone rubble tumble (213) from curtain wall.

Fig. 17: South-facing section of post hole [182] cutting uppermost metalled surface (170) in northern

entrance [171], Trench 3/08


Fig. 18: South-facing elevation of northern curtain wall (151) in Slot J, Trench 3/08 showing underlying

peat deposit (007)

Fig. 19: West-facing elevation of wall (152), Slot J Trench 3/08, showing underlying silt and upcast

sandstone layers (155)/(156) and peat deposit (007). The cut for robber pit [153] has truncated the

southern extent of wall (152)


Fig. 20: East-facing elevation of wall (152), Slot H Trench 3/08 showing exposed rubble core after

removal of ashlar face, the result of robber activity and cut for robber pit [153] truncating wall (152) to the

south. The eastern face of wall (152) forms/provides the internal western wall of gatehouse structure [157]

Fig. 21 a & b: South-facing elevation of northern wall (160) (upper), and west-facing elevation of wall

(164) (lower) both in Trench 3/08. Wall (160), aligned east-west is butted by wall (164) aligned north-

south, both forming the north-east corner of gatehouse structure [157]


Fig. 22: South-facing elevation of wall (167), forming southern wall of gatehouse structure [157] in

Trench 3/08, showing rubble overburden deposit (168) as a result of disturbance from 19th -century robber

activity

Fig. 23: South-facing section of remaining baulk overburden across northern extent of entrance [171]

overlying eastern elevation of wall (164), showing build-up of rubble deposits through robber activity (193)

and general collapse (192) and intermittent formative soil and peat layers (180)/(150)/(001) over final

(phase 3) metalled surface (170) and a sealing debris layer (185) containing medieval artefactual evidence


Fig. 24: West-facing elevation of wall (175), showing rubble tumble (178)/(193) from outer revetment wall

(178) to the north. Wall (175), aligned roughly north-south, forms the eastern side of the northern entrance

or gateway [171] and has been truncated to the south, resulting in a curved or arched profile. Stone

footings (176) were identified in a sondage excavated through the uppermost metalled surface (170)

Fig. 25: South-facing elevation of wall (178) Slot E, Trench 3, showing ashlar-fronted dressed masonry of

inner face of northern curtain wall, to east of entrance [171]


Plates: The Photographic Archive

Fig. 26: View down the western slope showing the lack of ditch and steepness of the slope at this point,

showing barbican to the right, looking north-west.

Fig. 27: View from south-east corner of mound, looking out over ditch [101], concrete STARFISH

(foreground) and quarry workings towards Swineshaw Moor, looking south-east.


Fig 28: View of quarry workings and starfish from mound, showing ditch in foreground, looking east,

showing bronze age cairn on the ridge in the background, looking south-east

Fig. 29: View of late 19th century incursion into earthwork at south-west corner of the mound, showing

Swineshaw in background, looking south-west.


Fig. 30: Working shot of manual excavation of Trench 1/08 on eastern extent of earthwork, showing

proximity to STARFISH remains, looking south-east.


Fig. 31: View of Trench 1/08, showing quarry workings and STARFISH remains in background, looking

south-east.

Fig. 32: North-facing section of ditch [201] in Trench 1/08, showing fully excavated profile on eastern

extent of section, looking south.


Fig. 33: Working shot showing upper rubble fills of ditch [201] in Trench 1/08, showing composite

sandstone upcast material forming eastern profile of the inner mound, looking west.

Fig. 34: Detail of masonry rubble in upper fill of ditch [201] in Trench 1/08, showing dressed and worked

stone blocks used in the curtain wall.


Fig. 35: View of western extent of sondage C through upper composite layers of sandstone upcast levelling

layers on eastern profile of mound, Trench 1/08, looking west.

Fig. 36: View of eastern extent of sondage C, showing rock-cut profile of ditch, extending up outer bank.


Fig. 37: View along Trench 2/08, showing rubble demolition layer (101) and composite sandstone levelling

layer (103), with the inner face of wall (108) in the background, looking east.

Fig. 38: View along Trench 2/08, showing Slot A through composite sandstone layers (101) & (103)

comprising raised mound, looking west.


Fig. 39: View of in situ remains of wall (108) and outer revetment/curtain wall (109), showing Slot B

through deposit (103) in the centre of the shot, showing dressed inner face of wall (109), looking south.

Fig. 40: View of Slot B, showing dressed inner face of curtain wall (109), with ditch and Trench 1/08 in

background, looking east.


Fig, 41: View along wall (108) in Trench 2/08 with dressed inner face, showing robber pit incursion[191]

in bottom left corner, looking north.

Fig. 42: View of causewayed approach to original north-east entrance prior to excavation of trench 3/08,

showing discontinuous outer ditch at either side.


Fig. 43: General view across in situ remains of walls comprising gatehouse [157] and entrance [171]at

north-east extent of the site, Trench 3/08 looking east.

Fig. 44: General post-excavation shot of entrance and gatehouse in Trench 3/08, looking north-west


Fig. 45: Mid-excavation shot of entrance [171], showing wall (164) to the west (LHS) and wall (175) to the

east (RHS), with the uppermost metalled surface (170) still in situ, looking north.

Fig. 46: Mid-excavation shot of entrance [171], showing deposit (185) and yellow clay (184) overlying

metalled surface (170), with un-excavated post hole [182](RHS) under deposit (185), looking west.


Fig. 47: UMAU staff sampling charcoal and organic debris from deposit (185), Trench 3/0/8.

Fig. 48: View of baulk section of overburden layers in entrance [171], Trench 3/08, showing post hole

[182] (unexcavated), and eastern elevation of wall (164) (LHS) looking north.


Fig. 49: Pre-excavation shot of post hole [182] within metalled surface (170) in entrance [171], Trench

3/08.

Fig. 50: Post-excavation shot of post hole [182], showing stone packing and underlying sandstone of layer

(173).


Fig. 51: Excavation of deposits within entrance [171], showing superimposition of metalled surfaces (170)

(uppermost) and (173/174), with walls (175) (LHS) and (164) (RHS) forming the eastern and western

extent of the entrance, looking north.

Fig. 52: Excavation of deposits within entrance [171], showing row of ‘kerb’ stones (188) running east-

west across metalled surface (173), looking north.


Fig. 53: Detail of north-south wall (164), forming eastern wall of gatehouse structure and western wall of

entrance, showing inner rubble core with dressed facing blocks still in situ on eastern elevation. The wall

appears to have partially collapsed, arcing to the east.


Fig. 54: Excavated sondage through metalled surface (170), showing underlying surface (173) and stone

footings (172) for north-south wall (164).

Fig. 55: Excavated sondage at northern extent of entrance [171], showing lower metalled surface (174)

under upper metalled sandstone surface (173).


Fig. 56: West-facing elevation of wall (175), showing stone footings (176) exposed in sondage, and curtain

wall (178) behind, extending eastward, looking east

Fig. 57: View of west-facing elevation of wall (164), showing collapse of upper courses, possible phase-

break and spread of mortar in north-east corner formed with wall (160), looking south-east


Fig. 58: View of south-facing elevation of wall (160) forming northern wall of gatehouse structure [157],

showing butting wall (164) forming the north-east corner

Fig. 59: View of south-facing elevation of wall (160), butting northern curtain wall (151), forming the

north-west corner of gatehouse structure [157]


Fig. 60: View along west-facing elevation of wall (164), showing exposed lower courses in Slot F and

possible re-used stone lintel in exposed secondary course mid-way along wall, looking north-east

Fig. 61: Base of Slot F, showing parallel cuts [186] (LHS) and [187] (RHS), associated with wall (164)

running north-south to the east, looking south


Fig. 62: View along wall (167), running east-west forming the southern wall of gatehouse structure [157],

showing square stone-lined feature [166] in the south-east corner, looking east

Fig. 63: Detail of sub-rectangular stone-lined feature [188], located at the northern extent of wall (175),

across the entrance [171, interpreted as a timber post-socket


Fig. 64: View along east-facing elevation of wall (152) running north-south, forming the western extent of

gatehouse structure [157], and intersection (keyed into) with curtain wall (151) to the west. Wall (152)

continues to the north, with wall (160) forming the northern extent of the structure, showing Slot H (RHS)

and Slot J (LHS), looking north.


Fig. 65: Detail of east-facing elevation of wall (152) and Slot H, showing removal of ashlar facing stones

through robber activity, looking north-west

Fig. 66: Detail of wall (152) keyed into northern curtain wall (151), forming north-west corner of

gatehouse structure [157], visible in Slot J, looking north


Fig. 67: Detail of east-facing section of wall (152), showing cut for robber trench [153] truncating

southern extent of the wall, visible in Slot H, looking west


Fig. 68: View along northern curtain wall (178), extending eastward from entrance [171], showing

internal ashlar/faced edge and external collapse of stonework from upper courses of the curtain wall,

looking north-west


Fig. 69: View of internal south-facing elevation of curtain wall (178), showing faced blocks in upper

courses, visible in Slot E (not fully excavated), looking north/north-east

Fig. 70: View of external northern curtain wall (178) and remains of possible secondary phase of parallel

internal defences running east-west, wall (181), looking north/north-west


Fig. 71: Test Pit 1, fully excavated showing heavily contaminated deposit (159) as a result of robber

activity within Trench 3, looking north

Fig. 72: General working shot of Trench 3,showing wall (152) in the foreground, looking east


Fig. 73: Working shot of excavations in Trench 3 , looking north-east

Fig. 74: View of causewayed approach to north-east entrance to site, looking up the middle-reaches of the

Tame Valley and across to Abraham’s Chair, looking north-east


Fig. 75: View of possible barbican under north-west corner of curtain wall, looking north-west

Fig. 76: An example of a mid 12

th century gatehouse arrangement showing multi-storey stone keep over the

entrance, Richmond Castle, North Yorkshire, c mid 12th

- century (© Yorke 2003, 28)


Plates: The Finds

Fig. 77: Late 11th

to 13th

century medieval Buff Gritty ware pottery (SF1) recovered from deposit (185) in

the entrance [171] in Trench 3/08, showing external surface with sooting/scorching.

Fig. 78: Late 11th

to 13th

century medieval Buff Gritty ware pottery (SF1) recovered from deposit (185) in

the entrance [171] in Trench 3/08, showing internal surface with throwing marks.


Fig. 79: Late 11th

to 13th

century medieval Gritty ware pottery (SF2) recovered from deposit (184) in

north-west entrance [171] of Trench 3/08 showing external surface with possible glaze.

Fig. 80: Late 11th

to 13th

century medieval Gritty ware pottery (SF2) recovered from deposit (184) in

north-west entrance [171] of Trench 3/08 showing internal surface.


Fig. 81: Possible industrial residue/ceramic waster (SF23) recovered from (184) in entrance [171],

Trench 3/08, showing upper and lower surfaces and partially vitrified section.

Fig. 82: Leather scrap SF45 (lower) from deposit (154), Trench 3/08 and possible medieval leather off-cut

SF46 (upper) from ditch fill (202), Trench 1/08.


Fig. 83: Iron nails recovered from metalled surfaces and deposits in the entrance [171], Trench 3/08.

Fig. 84: Fragments of tap slag from copper smelting or bronze working (SF55), recovered from

unstratified topsoil/subsoil interface but indicative of possible medieval metal working on site.

Fig. 85: Scrap of lead (SF17) recovered from topsoil/subsoil deposit.


Fig. 86: Fragments of butchered animal bone found in association with occupation debris and medieval

pottery fragments from deposits above metalled surfaces in the north-west entrance [171], Trench 3/08.

Fig. 87: Fragments of building materials recovered from deposits within the north-west entrance [171],

including mortar, red sandstone, fired clay, burnt/calcified shale and possible ceramic building material

(SF28) (pictured on the right).

excavations at buckton castle, tameside, greater...

Documents